Politics

What a weekend. Two new wars in Asia don’t qualify as top news.

My first reaction to Hegseth’s conflict with Anthropic was along the lines of: I expected an attempt at quasi-nationalization of AI, but not this soon. And I expected it to look like it was managed by national security professionals. Hegseth doesn’t look like he’s trying to avoid the role of cartoon villain.

On closer inspection, it doesn’t look very much like nationalization. A significant part of what’s going on is bribery. OpenAI’s president donated $25 million to a Trump PAC. Dario supported Harris in 2024, and hasn’t shown signs of shifting his support. The speed with which the Department of War started negotiating with OpenAI suggests that rewarding OpenAI was one of their motivations. If Hegseth wanted to avoid the appearance of corruption, he’d have waited a bit, and pretended to shop around. But bribery seems to be currently legal, and advertising the benefits is likely to be good for business.

On the other hand, his attempts to look like he’s punishing Anthropic look sufficiently clumsy that I’m confused as to whether he wants them to be effective. He advertised Anthropic as both having the best AI and as having the most integrity. I’m pretty sure that’s good for Anthropic’s business.

The breadth of Hegseth’s proposed supply chain risk order is well in excess of what he can plausibly enforce. Polymarket predicts almost no net harm to Anthropic. I’m confused as to what Hegseth expects, and what will happen when his expectations bump up against reality.

Continue Reading

My response to the recent ICE killings has been to donate $7000 to the campaign of Senator Bill Cassidy.

Cassidy is a Republican who has called for a “full joint federal and state investigation” into the latest shooting. He also voted to convict Trump in the second impeachment trial. He faces strong opposition from a Trump-endorsed opponent in the primary.

The rule of law depends rather heavily on some Republicans standing up against Trump. Supporting Cassidy seems like the clearest way to encourage that.

I’m analyzing what happens to the US economy in the short-term aftermath of the typical job being replaced by AIs and robots. Will there be a financial crisis? Short answer: yes.

This is partly inspired by my dissatisfaction with Tomas Pueyo’s analysis in If I Were King, How Would I Prepare for AI?.

Let’s say 50% of workers lose their jobs at the same time (around 2030), and they’re expected to be permanently unemployed. (I know this isn’t fully realistic. I’m starting with simple models and will add more realism later.)

Continue Reading

Who benefits if the US develops artificial superintelligence (ASI) faster than China?

One possible answer is that AI kills us all regardless of which country develops it first. People who base their policy on that concern already agree with the conclusions of this post, so I won’t focus on that concern here.

This post aims to convince other people, especially people who focus on democracy versus authoritarianism, to be less concerned about which country develops ASI first. I will assume that AIs will be fully aligned with at least one human, and that the effects of AI will be roughly as important as the industrial revolution, or a bit more important.

Continue Reading

Book review: Red Heart, by Max Harms.

Red Heart resembles in important ways some of the early James Bond movies, but it’s more intellectually sophisticated than that.

It’s both more interesting and more realistic than Crystal Society (the only prior book of Harms’ that I’ve read). It pays careful attention to issues involving AI that are likely to affect the world soon, but mostly prioritizes a good story over serious analysis.

I was expecting to think of Red Heart as science fiction. It turned out to be borderline between science fiction and historical fiction. It’s set in an alternate timeline, but with only small changes from what the world looks like in 2025. The publicly available AIs are probably almost the same as what we’re using today. So it’s hard to tell whether there’s anything meaningfully fictional about this world.

Continue Reading

Book review: The Death of Cancer: After Fifty Years on the Front Lines of Medicine, a Pioneering Oncologist Reveals Why the War on Cancer Is Winnable–and How We Can Get There, by Vincent T. DeVita, and Elizabeth DeVita-Raeburn.

In my last review of a medical book, I was disappointed about the lack of explanation as to why medical advances get deployed much too slowly, particularly cancer treatments.

By some strange coincidence, the next medical book I read, published a decade earlier, provides some valuable insights into those problems.

This is a memoir of both luck and skill. DeVita is uniquely qualified to describe the origins of the war on cancer, due to a career that included diagnosing patients, running clinical trials, and serving as director of the National Cancer Institute.

Continue Reading

Mainland China seems committed to reasserting control over Taiwan within a few years, regardless of how much force is needed. Here’s my attempt at planning a non-disastrous scenario.

I have less expertise here than in my average blog post, so I encourage readers to question my guesses.

Blockade

In April of 2028, China launches a blockade of Taiwan. It surrounds the island with their navy, threatening to seize or sink any ship leaving Taiwan that doesn’t submit to Chinese inspections.

Continue Reading

On May 16, news sources reported that Republicans planned to eliminate subsidies for nuclear power, leading a number of pundits to complain that Republicans were destroying nuclear power in the US (e.g. this otherwise good Noahpinion post).

The stock market told a very different story. I will illustrate with the stock prices of the two companies that seem most focused on building new nuclear power plants.

NuScale (NYSE:SMR) was up more than 52% between April 30 and May 22.

It was up a further 19.6% on May 23 in reaction to an executive order that is aimed at speeding up approvals of nuclear plants.

Oklo (NYSE:OKLO) was up more than 67% between April 30 and May 22. It was up a further 23% on May 23.

Both stocks were up slightly on May 16 and the subsequent trading day, indicating little interest in the news about subsidies.

The market seems to be pretty clear: the benefit of reducing regulations is so much larger than the benefit from subsidies that the subsidies are hard to distinguish from a rounding error.

It’s also fairly likely that some of the market rise up through May 22 was influenced by the executive order that was published on May 23. In other words, it seems pretty likely that somebody profited from advance knowledge of the executive order. I’m pretty sure that’s covered by the SEC’s rules as illegal insider trading.

I can’t prove insider trading here. It’s possible that there was public information that contributed to the pre May 23 rise. The NYT reported relevant rumors on May 9, but both that article and the stock market reaction to it suggest that the administration didn’t decide until sometime later on what kind of executive order to make.

I don’t care enough about insider trading to be too outraged about this particular example of likely corruption. But I’m a bit sad that the most corrupt administration in US history manages to look better than its critics on nuclear issues.

Note: I own stock in NuScale, and some uranium processing companies.