That NYT interview with Ross Douthat is just a lame attempt by Thiel to rehabilitate his image. From the interview, regarding how we as a society entered into a state of technological stagnation, and his subsequent support of Trump in 2016 as a way to "redirect the Titanic from the iceberg it was heading to, or whatever the metaphor is, to really change course as a society":
"I didn’t have great expectations about what Trump would do in a positive way, but I thought at least, for the first time in 100 years, we had a Republican who was not giving us this syrupy Bush nonsense. It was not the same as progress, but we could at least have a conversation. In retrospect, this was a preposterous fantasy."
Really? You, arguably the most influential and successful inventor of the modern age, couldn't foresee that Trump is just going to leverage his populism to further cement the power structures that brought him into power? How was that ever going to lead to societal level change in a way that would bring about an explosion of science and technological innovation?
Nah, I'd believe that Thiel (correctly) sensed that Trump was a vessel through which he could accumulate much more power and wealth, due to Trump's brazen cronyism and corruption.
So now Thiel needs to somehow distance himself from Musk, Trump, and everyone else to try and recover whatever dignity he can. The only good news I can see is that, if he truly has any sort of crystal ball, he senses the winds starting to shift and the political power of MAGA waning.
I sincerely hope this is his best attempt at dignity, it's so quotable:
Thiel: Man, these things are so hard to score, but I think environmentalism is pretty powerful. I don’t know if it’s absolutely powerful enough to create a one-world totalitarian state, but man, it is ——
Douthat: I think it is not — in its current form.
Thiel: I want to say it’s the only thing people still believe in in Europe. They believe in the green thing more than Islamic Shariah law or more than in the Chinese Communist totalitarian takeover. The future is an idea of a future that looks different from the present. The only three on offer in Europe are green, Shariah and the totalitarian communist state. And the green one is by far the strongest.
[...]
[Tiel:]And when Charles Manson took LSD in the late ’60s and the murders started, what he saw on LSD, what he learned was that you could be like an antihero in a Dostoyevsky book and everything was permitted.
Of course, not everyone became Charles Manson. But in my telling of the history, everyone became as deranged as Charles Manson and the hippies took over ——
Douthat: But Charles Manson did not become the Antichrist and take over the world. We’re ending in the apocalyptic, and you’re ——
Thiel: But my telling of the history of the 1970s is the hippies did win. We landed on the moon in July of 1969, Woodstock started three weeks later and, with the benefit of hindsight, that’s when progress stopped and the hippies won.
This sounds less to me like MAGA dying as it does the last gasps of the libertarian compromise most conservatives tried to make with the liberals a decade or two ago.
Exactly. I feel like the AI companies are intentionally moving the goal posts- regardless of whether the resulting generated content is the same as the original, they still committed the crime of downloading and using the original copyright content in the first place!
After all they wouldn’t have used that content unless it provided some utility over not using it…
I just had this argument with a state wide government website. I have to log in to this site maybe once per year to update contact information and update a few fields. Unfortunately, that site silently deactivates your account automatically every 90 days. So I'm forced to change the password literally every time I log into the dumb thing.
They refused to establish MFA or passkeys - and instead insist that "NIST is the minimum recommendation for cybersecurity... and we take cybersecurity very seriously... to ensure the safety and security of the citizens... therefore we will not change our policy on mandatory account lockouts or password change requirements."
Regardless, number of lines is not an accurate metric of how "essential" a component is to the functioning of the overall system. How about this, try removing the LLM-related code from the script... what functionality is left, exactly?
There’s a whole sect who believes the opposite- that you are more spiritual and blessed by God the wealthier you are. Somehow being material wealthy is now a signal of your spirituality. :shrug:
If we have concerns about unregulated power of AI systems, not to worry - the US is set to ban regulations on “artificial intelligence systems or models” for ten years if the budget bill that just passed the house is enacted.
Oh I heard about that one, but didn't realize it is part of that "big beautiful tax bill"? Kind of crazy.
So is this like free-for-all now for anything AI related? Can I can participate by making my own LLM with pirated stuff now? Or are only the big guys allowed to break the law? Asking for a friend.
The law doesn't matter, since the bill also prohibits all judges in the USA, every single one, from enforcing almost all kinds of injunctions or contempt penalties.
(§70302, p.562)
> 70302. Restriction of funds
No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.
Doesn't that just require that the party seeking the injunction or order has to post a bond as security?
« (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. »
Does it actually make sense to pass a law that restrict future laws? Oh got it, that's federal state preventing any state passing their own laws on that topic.
Ok. From the party of “states rights” that’s a bit hypocritical of them. I mean- they applauded Dodds which basically did the exact opposite of this- forcing states to regulate abortion rather than a uniform federal standard.
I agree that the policy approach is inconsistent with regards to states' rights. I was simply pointing out that your statement about the effects of Dobbs was false.
I haven't followed those discussions (assuming there have been any kind of public discussions) but I guess the justification behind this is that IA is such a strategic industry for the USA that no state should dare to interfere.
Like, say, the development of nuclear weapons.
Wouldn't that have been awfull for the US people if, for instance, say the state of Nevada or the Marshall Islands could have banned nuclear tests..? /s
"""
...
IN GENERAL .—Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof
may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10
year period beginning on the date of the enactment
of this Act...
This is "more regulation" on the states (from the "states' rights" party, no less), and concentrates the potential for regulatory capture into the largest player, the Feds. Who just accepted a $400M gift from Qatar and have a Trump cryptocurrency that gets you access to the President.
"The Trump administration, however, wanted a replacement plane much faster, and the Air Force was exploring different options for doing so. At the same time, Trump tasked his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff with finding a list of viable planes, a senior White House official told CNN."
Trump publicly bragged about being the one to decide to accept it, as well.
It's unsurprising this stuff gets flagged. Half of the Americans on this site voted for this because "regulation bad" or some such. As if mega corps have our best interest at heart and will never do anything blatantly harmful to make a buck.
That NYT interview with Ross Douthat is just a lame attempt by Thiel to rehabilitate his image. From the interview, regarding how we as a society entered into a state of technological stagnation, and his subsequent support of Trump in 2016 as a way to "redirect the Titanic from the iceberg it was heading to, or whatever the metaphor is, to really change course as a society":
"I didn’t have great expectations about what Trump would do in a positive way, but I thought at least, for the first time in 100 years, we had a Republican who was not giving us this syrupy Bush nonsense. It was not the same as progress, but we could at least have a conversation. In retrospect, this was a preposterous fantasy."
Really? You, arguably the most influential and successful inventor of the modern age, couldn't foresee that Trump is just going to leverage his populism to further cement the power structures that brought him into power? How was that ever going to lead to societal level change in a way that would bring about an explosion of science and technological innovation?
Nah, I'd believe that Thiel (correctly) sensed that Trump was a vessel through which he could accumulate much more power and wealth, due to Trump's brazen cronyism and corruption.
So now Thiel needs to somehow distance himself from Musk, Trump, and everyone else to try and recover whatever dignity he can. The only good news I can see is that, if he truly has any sort of crystal ball, he senses the winds starting to shift and the political power of MAGA waning.
reply