$SPY
Trending UpSnapshot Window: 2026-07-23 03:30 UTC · ← Back to Crypto Overview
Social Momentum Summary
Total Engagement - Comments: 0, Retweets: 0, Likes: 0, Impressions: 265
Verbatim Community Citations & Social Evidence 1 source posts analyzed
Probably the most important section of today’s podcast with @BitcoinConner [Spoken audio]: I do think that the current administration is somewhat inoculated to restricting AI, but we're still at the very early innings. How many people have died from AI? We haven't had a major catastrophe. I think that inevitably, like any technology, you invent ships, there's gonna be shipwrecks, you invent AI. Some people will Use it as a tool for bad things or accidentally use it to cause some sort of harm. I guess my point is we are seeing pretty strong calls for heavy regulation of this technology before we've even seen any of those misuses or harms manifest. We're on the other side on the positive side, explore the full potential of it. Yeah, or explore the full potential of it. And so I'm just worried that without someone explaining in clear terms the optimistic case for human flourishing with AI, how this is a compliment to human agency, greatness, achievement, and all of the sort of knock-on benefits it can bring to individuals, localities, states that you're going to just, you know, go down a pretty dark path of you'll get surveilled, closed, permissioned, AI fiefdoms. You know, there are people in the administration that defend open source. But is that going to stand up over time if we have open source that's at the capability of Fable or five times better than Fable? I really hope so. It It has to, in my mind, for us to have a free society. But there's strange winds blowing in DC, and I feel like there's a lot more money coming in on the restrict side. What's whispering in these winds? Yeah, I mean, just one example. Trump's sort of, one of Trump's like ground game lieutenants. Her name is, it's escaping me now, I think it's Lisa Krimmer. She used to, she ran like the Stop the Steel grassroots campaign for the 2020 election and the dispute over that. She is now being funded by Effective Altruist. Oh gosh. To run a new campaign called Humans First, which is like a MAGA-aligned anti-AI. Populist anti-AIS. Yeah, populist AI. So I will say that the doomers, the people that want to paint this pessimistic view of AI, they are very, very savvy about how to play in the conversation. Well, the frontier model providers themselves. I mean, I think open AI is sort of backed away from it. It seems like Dario and Anthropoc are leaning into it. And one has to wonder, view their marketing or how they're positioning things with a lens of skepticism, because it's an easy way for them to get a regulatory mode, which if you're following economic incentives is probably something they want at the end of the day. It's really difficult to actually figure out motives, and that is what's difficult about all this. I do think there are some people that genuinely think AI is dangerous. Paperclip problems, really. Yeah, we're gonna get paper clipped and that they're not doing this, like Yidkowski is not seeking regulatory capture. Yidkowski, genuinely from the bottom of his heart, wants to blow all this stuff up. And for whatever reason, has just been like one shotted by these doomer scenarios. And then I think there's like, there's just this whole spectrum of different people that are all, it is a really strange set of bedfellows of people that are pushing in the same direction. You know, you started to think through it, you have foreign influence, right? Strategic adversaries, of course, they want to undermine the use of the technology. You You have, let's say, radical environmentalists, people that want to de-develop civilizations. Malthusians. Yeah, Malthusian. You have economic populists that have legitimate concerns about job displacement, and they're confused about where they're going to fit into all this. You have people that are just your classic run-of-the-mill socialists, Marxist-type people that generally believe that all this should be redistributed. You have the national security hawks that think only the government should have access to technology and we need to restrict it to just a few bureaucrats. Then you have the effective altruist, you have the incumbents that are playing for the frontier regulatory capture game. All of these people are angling in a similar direction. It's sort of rowing in the same boat. I don't even think they're working together, but it is just this weird thing that we haven't really seen with any other. Typically you have like pretty strong set of voices on both sides. This is sort of a weird place where people that in no other scenario would it be sort of rowing in the same direction are all for one reason or another lining up. And I'm genuinely, I'm deeply concerned that our ability to use open-source models or use these things in a way that maintains our privacy is compromised because of that, you know? It was 2023 when Dario was testifying in the Senate that open-source AI is headed down a very dangerous path. It was three years ago. So I just think at the end of the day, it would be just terrible if we're the ones that are getting the short end of the stick again as a result of all of this. And that's why going back to the beginning of the conversation, DC is going to be very, very important for the next 10 years. I mean, my ability to predict what's going to happen is just so low. It's all bets are off on what's going to happen with the rate of progress, but on the policy front, there are dark where the wind's blowing in D.C.