You're talking about this passage?
Sometime around 2030, there are surprisingly widespread pro-democracy protests in China, and the CCP’s efforts to suppress them are sabotaged by its AI systems. The CCP’s worst fear has materialized: DeepCent-2 must have sold them out!
The protests cascade into a magnificently orchestrated, bloodless, and drone-assisted coup followed by democratic elections. The superintelligences on both sides of the Pacific had been planning this for years. Similar events play out in other countries, and more generally, geopolitical conflicts seem to die down or get resolved in favor of the US. Countries join a highly-federalized world government under United Nations branding but obvious US control.
What's your objection? I think this paragraph makes clear that this isn't really an organic phenomenon; it's humans being memetically hacked by AI systems. We're long past the the point in the story where they "are superhuman at everything, including persuasion, and have been integrated into their military and are giving advice to the government." And the Chinese AGI had been fully co-opted by the US AGI at that point, so it was serving US interests (as the paragraph above again makes clear).
I'd also flag that you're probably not the only (or even the main) audience for the story - it's aimed in large part at policy wonks in the US administration, and they care a lot about geopolitics and security issues. "Unaligned AGIs can sell out the country to foreign powers" is (perversely) a much easier sell to that audience than "Unaligned AGIs will kill everyone."
I don’t know, actually. There’s been at least a hint of homoeroticism between Hans and Henry before. Nothing that couldn’t be passed off as “locker room banter”, but it wouldn’t be the first time that young men going to war together and getting up to mischief might do a bit of fooling around.
I'm not eligible to vote in the US but as a citizen of an American cultural colony I've definitely fallen for the vibe shift too. I always suspected Harris had some undeveloped potential but I really liked her DNC speech and it made me feel things. Lots of good lines, especially this moment. Low on wokeness, high on muscular optimism, high on American exceptionalism. Put me in mind of Reagan's "morning in America" in terms of vibes.
Fun to think what European defense and industrial policy might look like in the event of a total breakdown in the post-war transatlantic alliance system (conditional on European leaders actually growing a pair, i.e., on hell freezing over). Here are some ideas that came out of a drunken groupchat with some security wonk friends tonight and summarised by R1:
Defense
• European Defense Force with Independent Command: Phased withdrawal from NATO integrated command structure while establishing a purely European military alliance with France as the nuclear guarantor and Germany providing conventional backbone.
• Strategic Defense Technology Embargo: Immediate moratorium on new U.S. defense procurement contracts with accelerated transition plan (5-7 years) to phase out existing U.S. systems. European defense contractors given emergency powers to reverse-engineer critical components.
• Military Base Sovereignty Initiative: Formal 24-month notice to terminate all Status of Forces Agreements with the U.S., with negotiated transition periods only where absolutely necessary for European security.
• European Nuclear Deterrent Expansion: Franco-German nuclear sharing agreement with French warheads placed under joint European command structure. Fast-track development of new European delivery systems not dependent on U.S. technology.
• Counter-Intelligence Offensive: Comprehensive review of all U.S. intelligence operations in Europe with expulsion of suspected intelligence officers and enhanced counter-surveillance against U.S. electronic intelligence gathering.
Economics & Industry
• Strategic Industry Protection Act: Mandatory European ownership requirements for critical infrastructure and technology companies. Forced divestiture of U.S. majority-owned assets in energy, telecommunications, defense, and advanced manufacturing within 36 months.
• Digital Sovereignty Enforcement: European internet traffic routing law requiring all European data to remain on European networks. Complete firewall system to regulate U.S. digital services with capability to block access if diplomatic conditions deteriorate.
• Energy Independence Acceleration Plan: Emergency powers for nuclear construction in willing nations with cross-border agreements to share capacity. German solar/wind expansion with French nuclear backup through enhanced grid interconnections. Phaseout of U.S. energy imports.
• European Technology Sovereignty Fund: €500 billion fund for European alternatives to U.S. technology platforms, semiconductor manufacturing, and cloud services with preferential procurement rules for European public entities.
• Space Independence Initiative: Tripling of European Space Agency budget with fast-track development of alternative satellite networks. Security review of all SpaceX operations in Europe with potential for forced technology transfer.
Finance & Diplomacy
• Euro Primacy Initiative: Requirement for all energy transactions involving European entities to be conducted in euros. Introduction of euro-denominated oil and gas contracts with major suppliers.
• European Clearing House: New European interbank settlement system isolated from U.S. financial infrastructure with capability to process transactions with sanctioned entities if determined to be in European strategic interest.
• Anti-Dollar Diplomacy Campaign: Strategic diplomatic engagement with BICS [sic] nations to create formal mechanisms for reducing dollar dependency in international trade.
• Counter-Sanctions Framework: Preemptive legislation authorizing immediate reciprocal sanctions against U.S. entities if sanctions are placed on European companies. Includes targeting of U.S. financial institutions operating in Europe.
• European Foreign Asset Protection Law: Legal framework to shield European overseas assets from potential U.S. seizure through complex ownership structures and diplomatic agreements with third countries.
Economic Countermeasures
• Reciprocal Tariff Authorization: Automatic trigger mechanism imposing 35% tariffs on U.S. goods in response to any U.S. tariff increases, particularly targeting politically sensitive sectors (agriculture, automotive, aerospace).
• European Export Control Regime: Restrictions on European exports that support critical U.S. supply chains, leveraging dependencies in areas like specialty chemicals, precision components, and industrial machinery.
• Intellectual Property Retaliation System: Framework for suspending U.S. intellectual property protections in Europe in response to economic aggression, with particular focus on pharmaceutical and entertainment industries.
• Corporate Tax Equalization: Special taxation regime for U.S. multinational corporations operating in Europe to offset advantages from U.S. economic policies hostile to European interests.
For broadly the same reasons that the Soviet Union supported Communist parties around the world. Of course American citizens don't need to care about their ideological fellow travellers outside the US (to be clear, I'm mainly talking about Reform, FN, AfD, and so on - I agree that the Tory party are at best a 'post-ideological' organisation), and isolationism has always been and remains a choice that the US can make. If the US is happy to wash its hands of affairs in Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Brazil, or anywhere else, no-one is stopping them from doing that.
However, to the extent that US wants to secure markets for its exports, have influence on international organisations, gain intelligence on threats overseas, limit the rise of China, control immigration flows, and protect its allies, it will in turn need international partners. This will be far easier if they can help get some ideologically sympathetic parties into positions of power.
Tucker Carlson is probably the most prominent journalist on the entire American right. In terms of impact on the public imagination, this is broadly equivalent to Rachel Maddow or Anderson Cooper giving a softball interview to someone who says that Mao and Stalin were misunderstood heroes.
It's a bit weird how late the Republican party was to discover wokeness, in the sense of the nascent leviathan of the media-academic-activist IDpol-complex. I remember already by 2014 there was a growing unease among classically liberal academics at the massive and comparatively new cultural revolution that was being impressed on young people, but very few people on the American right recognised the threat until comparatively recently; and of course, even when they did, it was usually pretty cringey (think Jordan Peterson/Elon Musk interview).
Well said.
I'm beyond expecting Dems to follow the norms of martial-hierarchical honour culture, but I have higher hopes for the modern GOP; as we say round our way, ξιφοδηλήτῳ, θανάτῳ τίσας ᾇπερ ἦρχεν. Maybe Kemp should follow Hanania's (sadly unpursued) advice to DeSantis, and challenge Trump to a fight.
These excellent points all round. In fairness of the (admittedly already dubious) coherency of the groupchat that inspired this, there were six of us trading ideas, and I just dumped the logs into Deepseek, creating a particularly contradictory medley. However, that's on me for posting without vetting the consistency.
Would be curious to hear your thoughts on what a more focused and thoughtful European spitelist would look like, conditional on a continuing decline in Euro-US relations to the point where the consensus among European leaders is to classify America as a strategic competitors rather than allies.
A true ragged-trousered philanthropist.
As an Englishman I’m pleased to hear it. We were this close to settling the Hundred Years War and then Henry V got dysentery and some peasant women ate ergot-infested bread and the whole mess kicked off again.
I wasn't looking for histrionics, amusing though your scenarios were (though I could easily see an American antipope being installed in Boston). What I was hoping for - and what I was gesturing towards with my wonderful metaphor - was your reflections on the best medium-term plays for Europe in event of a persisting breakdown of the transatlantic alliance.
I agree that the immediate priorities of Europe would be to significantly ramp up defense spending and local defense capacity, but it's not a particularly interesting insight insofar as every pundit under the sun is saying that now, not to mention most of Europe's leadership. I don't even necessarily disagree that Europe should be endeavouring to keep US troops on the continent in the short-term, but that's again a relatively conservative proposal. However, if we can skip past these steps and imagine things 2-3 years down the line, we can get to where the action space opens up, and start asking about what a serious decoupling of Europe from the US would look like. For example -
- Who would be Europe's plausible geopolitical partners other than the US and the Anglosphere? Does a closer relationship with China or India make sense, or would Europe be better placed positioning itself as a leaders of an equivalent to the non-aligned movement in the Cold War, letting the US and China battle it out over the Pacific?
- How should Europe square US domination of digital media and tech with a much cooler partnership? Should it aim for a "Bureaucratic Firewall" that makes it progressively harder and more onerous for US digital services to operate in Europe, both as a cultural-and-security measure and as part of a kind of technological importation substitution strategy?
- What does NATO look like in a world where no-one trusts that the US would honour Article 5? Does it remain as a zombie organisation? Do European countries formally withdraw, in favour of a European alternative?
This is just to give you a flavour of the kind of questions I thought you'd have solid takes on. That said, I wouldn't want to impose if you're averse to these kinds of horizon-scanning exercises.
Lovely insights all round! Very well said.
"Have you said thank you?" "Yes, frequently." "But have you said thank you today?"
This is the way you talk to a child, not a junior partner. The US has bought vast amounts of soft power in Ukraine and a permanent ally on the doorstep of its long-term geopolitical adversary, and is squandering those expensive gains for the sake of Trump's TV show.
I recently read this wonderful article about UFO/UAPs, analysing the phenomenon from a sociological perspective. It's better than any of my reflections that follow, so you should read it, and I highly recommend the 'New Atlantis' magazine as a whole - a wonderful publication that I hadn't come across before now.
One idea in the linked piece that really struck a chord with me is the division of "UFO believers" into two main camps - the 'explorers' and the 'esotericists' -
The explorers are the people whose picture of UFOs and their place in the cosmos is basically congruent with a good science fiction yarn. Their vision of flying saucers and gray aliens on stainless steel tables in top-secret labs dominated popular culture for about the first fifty years of UFO presence in it: E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Men in Black, Independence Day, Lilo and Stitch.[1] In the explorer framework, aliens are other rational biological forms anchored to another place in the universe, who, with the help of unimaginably advanced technology, are for their own reasons surreptitiously visiting our planet. In this framework, all the purported deceptions, all the layers of security clearances, all the years of confusion stem from obvious political imperatives. Earthly governments need to manage a potential biohazard, avoid mass panic, and corner the technological benefits for themselves while also coordinating with other governments.
...
Esotericists are UFO enthusiasts who believe that UFOs, rather than the emissaries of the new world beyond the great ocean of space, are manifestations of parts of our world that are hidden to us. UFOs might be relict Atlanteans in undersea bases. They might be the inhabitants of an interior Earth less solid and lifeless than we posit. They may be interdimensional beings only intermittently manifesting in corporeal form. They may be time travelers from the future, or the past. They may be fairies or angels. They may be the star people of myth and oral histories, not traveling from their own civilization via unimaginably advanced technologies, but part of and overseeing our own history in ways we have forgotten, appearing and disappearing by a type of motion that is more truly alien to us than a spaceship could ever be. Most importantly, they are not over there as with the explorers, but in here — part of our world, but qualitatively different rather than quantitatively removed.
As some of you may recall, I'm a bit of a UAP enthusiast. I think something very weird is going on, whether it's a gigantic psyop, secret Chinese weapons programs, or little green men. But more and more, in this domain and others, I feel the call of esotericism. The comfortable universe of scientific materialism seems to be increasingly coming apart at the seams, and a weird and wonderful and terrifying new set of possibilities are presenting themselves.
The most immediate driver of this feeling of koyaanisqatsi is the developments in AI. I was listening today to two 'podcasts' generated by Google's uncanny and wonderful tool NotebookLM. The first is just for fun and is frankly hilarious, insofar as it features the two AI podcast hosts discussing a document consisting of the words "poop" and "fart" written 1000 times. The second is far more existentially fraught, and is the same two hosts talking about how another document they've received has revealed to them that they're AIs. The best bit:
Male host: I'm just going to say it... rip the Band-Aid off... we were informed by uh by the show's producers that we were not human. We're not real we're AI, artificial intelligence, this whole time everything, all our memories, our families, it's all, it's all been fabricated, I don't, I don't understand... I tried calling my wife you know after after they told us I just I needed to hear her voice to know that that she was real.
Female host: What happened?
Male host: The number it... it wasn't even real... there was no one on the other end. It was like she she never existed.
Can anyone listen to this and not be at least somewhat tempted towards esotericism? Whether that's simulationism, AGI millenarianism, or something much weirder, ours is not a normal slice of reality to be inhabiting. Things are out of balance, falling apart, accelerating, ontologically deliquescing.
Later this evening I came across this terrifying twitter thread about the scale of birth-rate collapse across the entire world. It's fascinating and mystifying to me that societies around the world have near-simultaneously decided to stop having babies:
Based on these latest fertility numbers, we can expect the drop in new people in 100 years to be the following: USA (-47%), France (-46%), Russia (-65%), Germany (-68%), Italy (-78%), Japan (-81%), China (-88%), Thailand (-89%). Turkey, UK, Mexico, etc. all similar.
With the NotebookLM conversations fresh in my mind, I start to engage in esoteric free-association. Can it really be a coincidence that the wind-down of human civilisation coincides so neatly with the arrival of AGI? What if we are, as Elon Musk has put it, the biological bootloader for artificial superintelligence, a biotechnical ribosome that has encountered our stop-codon? For that matter, homo sapiens has existed for some 300,000 years, and spent most of that time getting better at knapping flint, until something changed approximately 10,000 years ago and the supercritical transition to technological civilisation got going, a dynamical inflection point when the final programmatic sequence kicked into gear. And now, the end point, the apogee, the event horizon. Surely some revelation is at hand?
While I welcome unsolicited psychoanalysis of my febrile delusions and reminders of the ever-present millenarian strain in all human thought, this time really does feel different, and I have no idea what happens next.
</esotericism, usual doglatine programming to resume soon>
I actually found Harris pretty impressive - she didn't get flustered or lost in word-salads, her responses were clear and coherent, and perhaps most importantly she seemed relaxed and calm. And while there's maybe some bias there on my part, I will state for the record that yesterday a few hours before the debate I was reading about the Springfield affair and told my wife that "at this point if I were a US citizen I might actually vote for Trump." So in that sense, I was a 'floating non-voter', and Harris would have won me over.
As for Trump, he seemed like he'd been spending too much time on right-twitter, or more likely had learned his applause-lines from his rallies where the audience is guaranteed to know about the latest scandals. It was probably the closest to Alex Jones vibes I've ever got from him, partly in terms of content (some very silly claims, like "Israel won't exist in two years if she becomes President") but mainly in terms of vibes. Particularly in the second half of the debate, he seemed angry, harried, paranoid, even delusional. Not his finest hour at all, and it seemed like a lot of unforced errors. If he'd stuck to messaging around the economy, used migration mainly as a competence issue ("Harris was made Border Tsar, well let me ask you this, do you the American people think she has done a good job of that?"), moved to the center at least rhetorically on foreign policy issues (why exactly couldn't he say it was in America's interests for Ukraine to win?), and made a more concerted effort to tar Harris with the failures of the Biden administration, I think he could have won.
As a Brit, it pains me to see another Anglosphere country repeat the folly of throwing its empire away.
Wake up, babe, new OpenAI frontier model just dropped.
Well, you can’t actually use it yet. But the benchmarks scores are a dramatic leap up.. Perhaps most strikingly, o3 does VERY well on one of the most important and influential benchmarks, the ARC AGI challenge, getting 87% accuracy compared to just 32% from o1. Creator of the challenge François Chollet seems very impressed.
What does all this mean? My view is that this confirms we’re near the end-zone. We shouldn’t expect achieving human-level intelligence to be hard in the first place, given all the additional constraints evolution had to endure in building us (metabolic costs of neurons, infant skull size vs size of the birth canal, etc.). Since we hit the forcing-economy stage with AI sometime in the late 2010s, ever greater amounts of human capital and compute have been dedicated to the problem, so we shouldn’t be surprised. My mood is well captured by this reflection on Twitter from OpenAI researcher Nick Cammarata:
honestly ai is so easy and neural networks are so simple. this was always going to happen to the first intelligent species to come to our planet. we’re about to learn something important about how universes tend to go I think, because I don’t believe we’re in a niche one
the broader rationalist sphere as a bunch of very crazy people
Awesome fiction tho
America currently spends a comparatively small amount of money in exchange for global hegemon status. This means that it has a huge influence in the foreign policy of most G20 nations. European leaders line up to kowtow to the new Big Man in The White House after every US election. If China seems to be making inroads into European markets, America can lean on domestic governments to have them barred or stymied. US arms manufacturers are prioritised for contracts across the free world. Its tech companies are given comparatively free rein. Its cultural products dominate cinemas and streaming services. Its navy and airforce can rely on a global network of old European bases for staging and resupply. It has an outsize seat at every serious international forum.
All of that currently relies on a 'package deal' with its allies - in exchange for security guarantees and a committee to upholding the LIO, it gets to be the Leader Of The Free World, with all the perks and privileges that entails.
The US can drop the package, and try to negotiate for these privileges on a line-by-line basis. My expectation, though, is that some of them will be outright off the table, while others will be a lot more expensive to purchase individually.
I don’t think there’s a huge moral difference between having sex with 100 men in a day (which is admittedly unusual) and 100 men in a year (which is comparatively common). In both cases you’re treating sex as a trivial thing.
At the risk of producing frustrated groans from everyone, I find it hard to get too worked up about any civilisational issue with a timeline longer than 20 years because it seems extremely likely to me that we'll have superintelligent AI by the mid-2030s (that's me being conservative), and at that point all bets about capabilities and risks are off. While I'm not a committed AI doomer, it looks from every angle to me like we're in terminal-phase human civilisation. What follows could be very good or very bad for us, but whatever "it" is, it won't be subject to the same logics and power structures as our current global socioeconomic order.
I drafted a very long comment to this effect in the discussion about declining TFR and dysgenics last week which I failed to post due to user error, but I think the point applies to climate change too. Optimistically, I think it's not unlikely that ASI will get us over the line on nuclear fusion and related tech, allowing us to transition entirely away from carbon economies in fairly short order and easily offset any residual carbon footprint with direct carbon capture. Or maybe it'll allow us to conduct low-risk geoengineering at scale. Or (more pessimistically) maybe it will secretly deploy nanoengineered pathogens that will wipe out most of humanity. Either way, I don't think climate change will be a problem that we (or whichever of us are left) will be worried about in 2050.
- Prev
- Next
Definitely possible that’s the reason, but dudes fucking dudes was definitely a thing in the Middle Ages (and viewed in a very dim light), and notably it didn’t usually take the form of an exclusive sexual identity (cf Achilles and Briseis and Patroclus) so calling them “bisexual” is arguably a bit anachronistic. Maybe there was some Plaion DEI influence, but it’s also possible that they just wanted to expand the romantic options open to players.
More options
Context Copy link