Well, there's also an industrial complex

according to some folks that

are backing this. If you've heard of

effective altruism, that was like this

uh movement of a bunch of I don't know,

I guess they consider themselves

intellectual sacks and they uh were kind

of backing a large swath of

organizations that I guess we would call

in the industry astroturfing or what do

they call it when you make so many of

these organizations that they're not

real in politics and flooding the zone

perhaps. So if you were to look at this

article here, Nick, I think you have the

AI existential risk um industrial

complex graphic there. It seems like a

group of people according to this

article have backed to the tune of 1.6

billion a large number of organizations

to scare the be Jesus out of everybody

and make YouTube videos, Tik Toks, and

they've they've made a map of it.

There's some key takeaways here from

that article where it says here that

it's an inflated ecosystem. There's a

great deal of redundancy. Same names,

acronyms, logos with only minor changes.

Same extreme talking points. Same group

of people just with different titles.

Same funding source. There's a funding

source called Open Philanthropy which

was funded by Dustin Moskovitz who is

one of the Facebook billionaires.

Chimath, you worked with him, right? I

mean he was wasn't he like Zuck's

roommate at Harvard or something and one

of the first engineers made a lot of

money. So he funded this he he's an EA

and he funded this group called Open

Philanthropy which then has become the

feeder for essentially all these other

organizations which are almost different

fronts to basically the same underlying

EA ideology.

And what's interesting is that the guy

who set this up for Dustin, Holden

Carnowski, who is a major effective

altruist and was doing out all the

money, he's married to Daario's sister

and she she's I guess associated with EA

and she was one of the co-founders of

Anthropic. So these are not

coincidences. I mean the reality is

there's a very specific ideological and

political agenda here. Now what is that

agenda? It's basically global AI

governance if you will. They want AI to

be highly regulated but not just at the

level of the nation state but let's say

internationally supernationally to

well if you just do a quick search on

global compute governance it'll tell you

what the key aspects are. So number one

they want regulation of computational

resources. This includes access to

GPUs. They want AI safety and security

regulation. They want international, you

call them, globalist

agreements. And they want ethical and

societal considerations or policy built

into this. Now, what does that sound

like? That sounds a lot to me like what

the Biden administration was pursuing.

Specifically, we had that Biden

executive order on AI, which was 100

pages of Bernson regulation that was

designed to promote AI safety, but had

all these DEI requirements. So you know

it led to woke AI. You remember when

Google launched Black George Washington

so forth they had the Biden diffusion

rule which created this global licensing

framework to sell GPUs all over the

world. So extreme restrictions on

proliferation of servers of computing

power. They created what's called the AI

safety institute and they again fostered

these international AI summits. So if

you actually look at what the Biden

administration was tangibly doing in

terms of policy and you look at what

EA's agenda is with respect to global

compute governance, they were pushing

hard on these fronts. And now if you

look at the level of personnel, there

were very very

powerful Biden staffers who now all work

in anthropic. So probably the most

powerful Biden staffer on AI over the

past four years was a lawyer named Tarun

Chabra and he now works at Anthropic for

Daario. Elizabeth Kelly who was the

founding director of the AI safety

institute in the government now works at

Anthropic. Like I mentioned Daario's

sister is married to Holder and

Karnowski who doss out all the money to

these EA organizations. So if you were

to do something like create a network

map, you would see very quickly that

there's three key nodes here. There's

the effective altruist movement of which

Sam Bankman Freed's most notable member,

but which I think Dustin Mos is now the

main funer. There's the Biden

administration and like the key staffers

and then you've got anthropic and it's a

very tightly wound network. Now why does

this matter? Let's get Yeah. Also the

goals I think is Yes. Well, the the

goal, like I said, is is global compute

governance. It's basically establishing

national and then international

regulations of AI. Now, but they would

claim, let's just pause here for a

minute. They would claim the reason

they're doing it. And so, we we'll we'll

save if we believe this or not, but they

are concerned about job destruction in

the short term. They're also concerned

as science fiction as it is that the AI

when we get to like a sort of

generalized super intelligence is going

to kill humanity that this is a nonzero

chance. Elon has said this before.

They've sort of taken it to a almost

like a certainty. Yes, we're going to

have so many of these general

intelligences that they only believe

that when they're raising money. Well,

that's what I'm sort of getting at.

Like, so I think they believe it all the

time, but maybe maybe the press releases

are time for for the fun building. But

let me let me answer that. So, right.

Yeah. Yeah. Look, I mean, it is a great

product. Cloud kicks us. I'm more

interested in the political dimension of

this. I'm not bashing a specific product

or company, but look, I think that there

is some nonzero risk of AI growing into

a super intelligence that's beyond our

control. They have a name for that. They

call it X-risk or existential risk. I

think it's very hard to put a percentage

on that. I'm willing to acknowledge that

is a risk. You know, I think about that

all the time and I do think we should be

concerned about it. But there's two

problems I think with this approach.

Number one is X-Risk is not the only

kind of risk. I would say that China

winning the AI race is a huge risk. I

don't really want to see a CCP AI

running the world. And if you hobble our

own innovation, our own AI efforts in

the name of stomping out every

possibility of X-risk, then you probably

end up losing the AI race to China

because they're not going to abide by

those same regulations. So again, you

can't optimize for solving only one risk

while ignoring all the others. And I

would say the risk of China winning the

AI race is, you know, it might be like

30%. Whereas I think X risk is probably

a much lower percentage. So there are

there are other risks to to worry about.

And I I do think that they are

single-mindedly focused on scaring

people with some of these headlines

around first it was the boweapons, then

it was the super intelligence, now it's

the job loss. And I think it's a tried

andrue tactic of people who want to give

more power to the government to scare

the population, right? Because if you

can scare the population and make them

fearful, then they will cry out for the

government to solve the problem. And

that's what I see here is that you've

got this elaborate network of front

organizations which are all motivated by

this EA ideology. They're funded by a

hardcore leftist. And by the way, I

became aware of Dustin's politics

because of the Chase Bodin recall. I

found out that he was a big funer of

Chase Bodin. Remember this? Yeah. Dustin

Mosimus and Carrie Tuna, his wife.

Also, Reed Hastings just joined the

board of of Anthropic. remember when he

back in 2016 to tried to drive Peter

Teal off of the board of Facebook for

supporting Trump. So, you know, these

are like committed leftists. They're

Trump haters. But the point is that

these are people who fundamentally

believe in empowering government to the

maximum extent, more government, and

empowering government to the maximum

extent. Now, my problem with that is I

actually think that probably the single

greatest dystopian risk associated with

AI is the risk that government uses it

to control all of us. To me, like you

end up in some sort of Orwellian future

where AI is controlled by the

government. And out of all the risks

we've talked about, that's the only one

for which I've seen tangible evidence.

So in other words, if you go back to

last year when we had the whole woke AI,

there was plenty of evidence that the

people who were creating these products

were infusing their left-wing or woke

values into the product to the point

where it was lying to all of us and it

was rewriting history. And there was

plenty of evidence that the Biden EO was

trying to enshrine that idea. Was

basically trying to require DEI be

infused into AI models. and it wanted to

anoint two or three winners in this AI

race. So, I'm quite convinced that prior

to Donald Trump winning the election, we

were on a path of global compute

governance where two or three big AI

companies were going to be anointed as

the winners. And the quid proquo is that

they were going to infuse those AI

models with woke values. And there was

plenty of evidence for that. You look at

the policies, you look at the models.

This was not a theoretical concern. This

was real. And I think the only reason

why we've moved off of that trajectory

is because of Trump's election.