pb

dei trust fund

reality artist

τ→0

Be kind. Do good. Dream big.

I'll be 15 minutes late.

[Policy Tensor @policytensor]

THE LOGIC OF THE IRANIAN ESCALATION

I have been complaining for three months that Iran’s theory of victory was no longer viable. While it neutralized US escalation threats with tit-for-tat counters, it relied on the Hormuz squeeze to force the US into capitulation on the Hormuz question.

Once Iran lost the Battle of Hormuz and flows returned to prewar levels, it was clear that this was not going to work. The costs that they were able to impose through the Hormuz squeeze were incommensurate with their ask. The US was not going to surrrender the Gulf to Iran because oil was around 100 dollars a barrel.

The Iranians tried for a while to regain control of Hormuz by striking more and more tankers. That failed. Now they have given up on that idea.

The Iranians have now declared that instead of hitting tankers, they will his US bases in the region if the US continues the game of cat and mouse. This is a decisive escalation. It is decisive because it forces a strategic decision. In effect, the Iranians have come around to my view and are now seeking a strategic decision.

The US cannot back off because of the threat itself. Iran actually has to hit US bases to show that it means business. Once that happens, the US is left with only two options: concede on the Hormuz ask or try to defeat Iran. What they cannot do is absorb the losses Iran can inflict on US bases. This was always the logic of my argument that they needed a strategic counterbase offensive to persuade the US to capitulate on the Hormuz question. The Adminstration thought it could wait until the after the midterms to sort this out. That is no longer possible.

Fittingly, the best option for the Administration now is to embrace Bibi's Hail Mary pass. It's not going to get them anywhere. The renewal of high intensity war will impose high costs on all three warring parties (unless the Israelis chicken out, not an unlikely scenario), and all bystanders.

But ultimately, after all the damage is done, we will have to go back to the table. It is now hard to see how the US can avoid a second strategic defeat. The problem remains that the balance of resolve favors Iran. The only way around it was to disarm Iran and reduce it to a nuissance. Already in March, that was shown to be impossible.

So we might be looking at the endgame here. The US will expend more weapons, deplete more of its magazine, lose operational use of more of its bases, until eventually it will give up and realize that the second missile age simply does not admit an American sphere of influence near a great missile power.

[Luke Gromen @LukeGromen]

Flying cars, endless gold supplies from fusion, etc.

The word "Wunderwaffe” came to mind:

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

This is perhaps one of the great ironies of our time: China is increasingly shaping the future of AI, yet very few people in the West have the faintest idea how its key thinkers see it - its philosophers, sociologists or ethicists.

As is too often the case, we - much like the frog in the well - assume our own AI debate covers every possible view, when much of it springs from the same cultural soil, built on assumptions about what defines us that we don’t even know we’re making.

Take for instance the assumption that intelligence is a key part of what makes us human. It’s so intuitively obvious to us that we literally named our species after it - Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man").

If you think about it, just this assumption explains a large share of the anxiety: if intelligence is what makes us human, then artificial intelligence - or super intelligence - threatens the very thing that makes us us: we’re about to compete with artificial or super “us”. No wonder this feels existential.

But China has a tradition of thought as old as ours, if not older, and every bit as rich and sophisticated, which never placed intelligence at the core of what makes us human, and so meets the thinking machine from a completely different starting point.

Have you, for instance, ever heard of Zhao Tingyang? Probably not, and yet he may be the most original thinker on AI you’ve never read. He’s one of China’s most prominent philosophers, at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. While Silicon Valley spends billions trying to make AI share our values, he for one argues that doing so “may very well be a suicidal mistake”.

Sounds pretty important to hear him out, don’t you think?

Or take Liu Yongmou, a philosopher of technology at Renmin University in Beijing. His thinking is almost the opposite of ours. Where we fear machines that become more and more like us, he says that “humanity’s biggest problem is the machinization of humans, not the humanization of machines.”

You could even go back to antiquity, when, in many ways, we started asking questions about AI.

Did you know, for instance, that Aristotle, in the Politics, imagined a world where “the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them”, and wondered about the social order consequences of this (mostly whether slaves would still be needed)?

There are Chinese equivalents to this. For instance, in the Zhuangzi, a foundational Taoist classic, you’ll find a similar thought experiment, with a completely different worry attached. An old gardener is watering his vegetables by hand, hauling water out of a well jar by jar. A visitor shows him a labor-saving device, and the gardener turns it down for the reason that whoever uses machines ends up with 机心 (jīxīn), a “machine-heart” - a mind that schemes, calculates and loses its simplicity. “It is not that I do not know [the machine],” he says, “but I should be ashamed to use it.”

Two labor-saving machines, two very different questions: where Aristotle wondered what automation would do to the social order, the Zhuangzi wondered what it would do to us, on the inside. Which, you’ll notice, is exactly Liu Yongmou’s worry, more than two thousand years earlier.

In fact, as we’ll see, 心 (xīn), the heart, is a motif that runs deep through the Chinese AI debate. It appears both in the fear, from Zhuangzi to Liu Yongmou, that machines could give us a “machine-heart” and its mirror image: the ambition to give machines a heart of their own. Zhu Songchun, who heads the Beijing Institute for General Artificial Intelligence, wants “to set a heart for machines” (为机器立心, wèi jīqì lì xīn).

“Heart” in the Chinese sense, that is, which differs totally from the Valentine's Day fluff we’ve reduced it to. 心 (xīn) means heart and mind at once: it’s where we feel but also where we think, tell right from wrong and care for others.

And, crucially, it’s in the heart that the quality Confucianism sees as the very definition of a human being takes root: 仁 (rén). We need two words to translate it, “benevolence” and “humaneness”, but in Chinese they’re one and the same: to be benevolent is to be human. It’s not about intelligence.

This is the entire point of my new article: to step out of our well for a moment and peer over the edge of China's.

What you’ll find there will, I think, surprise you, with questions you’d never thought to ask: from Zhao Tingyang warning that AI’s bad consequences can at least be fought, but that “humanity may die of all the good things AI creates”, to whether the fear that AI will make us “useless” rests on the false premise that a person is worth what they’re useful for.

A premise that a 2,300-year-old Taoist tree, which survived precisely because it was useless, demolished long ago. Could our predicted uselessness turn out, much like that tree’s, to be our saving grace?

Chinese thinkers’ answers to these questions are, I think, among the most interesting anyone has given to the defining question of our time. Whether or not you agree with them, they’re the intellectual backdrop of a country shaping much of AI, and with it our future: you might as well know what they think.

Enjoy the read here: https://t.co/8w34hA97e5

[pb @msansnom]

Meanwhile in America:

[Judd Rosenblatt @juddrosenblatt]

Xi Jinping AI speech transcript:

Distinguished colleagues and guests, ladies and gentlemen, friends,

70 years ago, a group of young scholars proposed the concept of artificial intelligence for the first time at the Dartmouth workshop in New Hampshire of the United States. In the subsequent 70 years, AI scientists and researchers from around the world ventured into this unknown territory, forged ahead through twists and turns, and made breakthroughs with persistent hard work.

Seven decades later today, amid the new wave of AI development, we are gathering by the Huangpu River to discuss how to promote AI globally for the positive, for good, and for humanity. All this makes our meeting highly important. On behalf of the Chinese government and people, I would like to extend a warm welcome to you all.

In the course of history, the invention of the steam engine heralded the industrial civilization. The widespread access to electricity brightened up modern society and the birth of the internet brought the entire world together. Each of these technological revolutions has profoundly reshaped our way of work and life and enabled a giant leap in economic and social development.

Today, major changes unseen in a century are accelerating across the world. The new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation is advancing at a faster pace. And the world has entered an unprecedented period of active innovation on AI technologies. Intelligent connectivity, human machine collaboration, cross-sector integration, joint creation and sharing and other intelligent technologies are unleashing enormous power.

All this carries within it great opportunities as well as challenges to governance. We human beings must answer the questions posed by our times. How to get along with thinking machines? How to ensure security when algorithms are part of decision making? How to tackle ethical challenges by technologies through adaptive governance. How to realize AI for all when the divide keeps widening? These questions demand serious consideration and real answers from the whole international community.

In China's view, all countries should take a people-centered approach and develop AI for the positive and for good. We should ensure that AI is an important driver for shared prosperity and common security. We should join hands to build a just and equitable system for global AI governance. To this end, I wish to share four observations.

First, we should adhere to the principle of openness and win-win and boost innovation-driven development as a new engine of world economic growth and an accelerator for the shift of growth drivers. AI is moving from the digital world into the physical world. We should seize this rare historic opportunity to encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing. We should facilitate technological innovation, industrial development and scenario-based application of AI. We should make coordinated advances in the transformation and upgrade of traditional industries, the cultivation and growth of emerging industries, and forward-looking planning for future industries so that all sectors and businesses can benefit from AI.

Second, we should strengthen risk awareness and ensure that AI is secure and controllable. AI should be a trusted tool for humanity. We should take seriously the various types of inherent and secondary risks that AI may trigger. We should put in place laws and regulations, technological monitoring, early warning and emergency response systems in order to strengthen the line of security, prevent abuses and malicious use and ensure that AI is always under human control. In the meantime, we should jointly oppose overstretching the national security concept in the field of AI or placing one country's security over that of others.

Third, we should encourage inclusiveness and promote mutual learning between civilizations. AI development and its application should not erode or undermine the diversity of world civilizations or the uniqueness of cultures of different countries. We must shape the values of AI with humanity's common values and make good use of AI technologies to increase understanding, tolerance, exchanges, and sharing among all civilizations. We should tend to the garden of civilizations with great care to ensure that the beauty of each civilization is appreciated and shared.

Fourth, we should advocate solidarity and improve global governance. AI is an invaluable asset that encapsulates humanity's collective wisdom. We should practice true multilateralism and recognize the important role of the United Nations. We should enhance alignment and coordination on AI development strategies, governance rules and technical standards so as to form a consensus based global governance framework at an early date to make this frontier technology better benefit humanity. We must carry out extensive international cooperation and help global south countries with capacity building to bridge the AI and digital divides, promote sustainable development and prevent creating new historical injustice in AI.

Ladies and gentlemen, friends,

This year marks the start of China's 15th 5-year plan. It maps out China's economic and social development for the next five years and provides immense opportunities for the international community.

In recent years, China has embraced AI with open arms. We have promoted interplay between an efficient market and a well functioning government, strengthened AI innovation, actively advanced the AI plus initiative and built a healthy ecosystem for all entities to thrive in together. The core smart economy industries are worth at least 1 trillion RMB yuan. Smart devices in countless homes truly improve people's livelihood. Intelligent manufacturing in China has become another shining hallmark of Chinese modernization.

At the same time, China lays great emphasis on safety and security in AI development with a deep understanding of the trends and logic of AI development. We are continuously improving laws, regulations, policies, mechanisms, application norms as well as ethical principles to make sure that AI is safe, secure, and controllable, and that this fine steed of AI gallops with both speed and stability.

As a responsible major country, China is always committed to providing international public goods relating to AI. Since I proposed the global AI governance initiative, China has promoted the adoption of the UN General Assembly resolution on enhancing international cooperation on capacity building of artificial intelligence by consensus. Published the AI capacity building action plan for good and for all. Announced the AI plus international cooperation initiative and advocated for establishing the world artificial intelligence cooperation organization, or WAICO. China has been contributing steadily to the global AI governance.

We often say in China, a single string cannot make music and a single tree does not make a forest. AI development should not be a solo performance by a single country but a symphony of international cooperation.

Thanks to our joint efforts, WAICO has come into being in Shanghai. Our vision from one year ago is now a reality. This is a major move by China to answer the call of the global south and unite the international community together to promote vigorously AI development and governance. It will be an important milestone in the history of AI development to further support global AI development and to advance global AI capacity building.

I hereby announce that in the next five years, China will provide developing countries with 5,000 opportunities in AI training and seminar programs. China will develop international AI application cooperation centers with ASEAN, the League of Arab States, the African Union, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS. And we will enable 30 countries to use the AI-powered meteorological warning system, Mazu, to safeguard homes around the world.

Ladies and gentlemen, friends,

As ancient Chinese observed, a man of wisdom adapts to changes. A man of knowledge acts by circumstances. With AI advancing at a staggering speed, we must ensure its development is for the positive, for good, and for humanity. We must make its oversight and governance precise and effective and constantly refine measures to forestall loss of control. We should always guide AI development with human wisdom and international consensus so that AI can truly become a mighty force that increases the well-being of humanity and advances human civilization.

China is ready to be more open, take more practical actions and assume a more visionary perspective. We are ready to work with all parties to seize the opportunities of AI development and meet the challenges and join hands to create a brighter future for humanity.

Thank you.

[Farokh @farokh]

Spaniards and Brazilians are absolutely wild lmao

[calle @callebtc]

Insane. Age verification is a Trojan horse for total control over everything you do on the internet.

[Jeffrey Currie 🆔++ @CommodMkt]

@robin_j_brooks your comments below reveal a profound lack of understanding of the oil market. Commodity futures price inventory, NOT expectations. That isn't ideology; it's a fact grounded in the economics of carry.

The Brent price in your graph is not a risk anyone can actually hold — it's a spot contract stitched together at each expiry. In normal times that's a fair proxy; these are not normal times. Construct a series an investor could truly hold — a rolled BCOM index, or the USO ETF — and the picture inverts: it slopes hard up and to the right, consistent with the largest supply shock in history.

USO keeps climbing because the shortage is showing up in the futures curve — not in the headline price on the screen. The carry pays an investor nearly 50% a year, even if the price of oil never moves.

The SPR was drawn down before commercial inventories — when it is normally the other way round. Strategic stocks are meant to be the last line of defence, not the first, but this time Washington spent them first, managing headlines not risk.

When you have no crude in storage, THEN and only then will the spot price move to a level to destroy demand. I have no idea if it is 150, or 200, or 250. The observed indication from Asia is ~200.

[calle @callebtc]

shitcoiners love to dunk on bitcoin L2 issues when we discuss grownup topics like scaling issues, privacy, and decentralization.

“just use zcash/monero/whatever”

bro. blockchains don’t scale. the only reason you can pretend otherwise is because you have no users. nada. niente.

you can play your stupid games and pretend like your coin is an alternative but if you’d every grow up, you’d face the same scaling pressure as bitcoin does. and then what?

until then, we literally don’t give a fuck about your tech as long as only a dozen people can use it. if you had any meaningful adoption, you’d have zero ideas how to scale it beyond that.

just stop. you’re not only not in the same league. you’re not even playing the same game as we do. you’re being ridiculous and you don’t sound as smart as you think you do.

end of rant. fucking shitcoiners.

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

There’s no overstating how extraordinary this Atlantic article is, given the author and the outlet.

As a reminder Bob Kagan is:

- The co-founder of Project for the New American Century, probably the single most imperialist Think Tank in Washington (which is quite a feat)

- A man who spent his entire life advocating for American military interventions, especially in the Middle East, and a vocal advocate of the Iraq war. He started advocating for intervention in Iraq before 9/11, which speaks for itself...

- The husband of Victoria Nuland, an extremely hawkish former senior U.S. official (a key architect of U.S. policy in Ukraine, with the consequences we all witness today)

- The brother of Frederick Kagan, one of the key architects of the Iraq surge

In other words, we ain’t exactly looking at some sort of anti-imperialist peacenik. This is quite literally the guy Dick Cheney called when he needed a pep talk.

And the man is writing in The Atlantic, the most reliably pro-war mainstream media outlet in the U.S. (also quite a feat).

So when HE writes that the U.S. “suffered a total defeat” in Iran that has no precedent in U.S. history and can “neither be repaired nor ignored,” it’s the functional equivalent of Ronald McDonald telling you the burgers aren’t great: it means the burgers really, really aren't great.

Extraordinarily (and somewhat worryingly, for me), his arguments for why this is such a defeat are virtually the same as those I laid out in my article “The First Multipolar War” last month (https://t.co/tbnOpdYqux).

Here they are 👇

1) Vietnam/Afghanistan were survivable, this isn't

He agrees that this war - and the U.S. defeat - is fundamentally different in nature from previous U.S. interventions.

Where I wrote that the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan didn’t change the equation much in terms of power dynamics (“in the grand scheme of things, the giant walked away with little more than a bruised ego”), Kagan writes that “the defeats in Vietnam and Afghanistan were costly but did not do lasting damage to America's overall position in the world.”

And when I wrote that “it’s painfully obvious that the Iran war is of a qualitatively different nature” from these, he writes that “defeat in the present confrontation with Iran will be of an entirely different character.”

Same point.

2) Iran will never relinquish Hormuz and uses it as selective leverage

When I wrote that Iran has turned “freedom of navigation” on its head by establishing “a permission-based regime” through the Strait of Hormuz, Kagan arrives at the same conclusion: “Iran will be able not only to demand tolls for passage, but to limit transit to those nations with which it has good relations.”

He also agrees that “Iran has no interest in returning to the status quo ante,” when I myself cited Iran’s parliament speaker Ghalibaf in my article, saying: “The Strait of Hormuz situation won’t return to its pre-war status.” Same point and virtually the same words.

3) Gulf states will have to accommodate Iran

He agrees that most Gulf states will have no choice but to accommodate Iran, effectively making Iran into a, if not THE, dominant regional power.

Kagan writes “the United States will have proved itself a paper tiger, forcing the Gulf and other Arab states to accommodate Iran.”

On my end, I wrote that “the Gulf monarchies will eventually have to choose between two security propositions. One where they stay aligned with a distant superpower that [can’t protect them]. The other proposition being: make peace with the regional power that just proved it can hit [them] whenever it wants.” Which is not much of a choice…

4) Military impossibility to reopen Hormuz

Kagan writes that “if the United States with its mighty Navy can't or won't open the strait, no coalition of forces with just a fraction of the Americans' capability will be able to, either.”

On my end, in my article I cited Germany’s defense minister Boris Pistorius: “What does Trump expect a handful of European frigates to do that the powerful US Navy cannot?”

The exact same argument.

5) Global chain reaction

Kagan agrees that this is a global strategic failure that fundamentally changes the U.S.’s position in the world. As he puts it: “America's once-dominant position in the Gulf is just the first of many casualties… America's allies in East Asia and Europe must wonder about American staying power in the event of future conflicts.”

You’ll have guessed it, I wrote essentially the same thing: “Think about what it says if you’re Saudi Arabia, quietly watching your American-built defenses fail to protect your own refineries. Or any European country now facing the worst energy shock since 1973, caused not by your enemy but by your ally, and realizing that said ‘ally,’ supposedly in charge of ‘protecting’ you, couldn’t even protect Israel’s most strategic sites - when it’s the country with which it’s joined at the hip. I’m not even speaking about China or Russia who are seeing their worldview being validated on almost every axis simultaneously.”

6) Weapons stocks depleted, credibility shattered

Kagan: “just a few weeks of war with a second-rank power have reduced American weapons stocks to perilously low levels, with no quick remedy in sight.”

Me: “America’s most advanced weapons systems are much more vulnerable than previously thought - not theoretically, but in actual combat.”

Kagan: “America's allies… must wonder about American staying power in the event of future conflicts.”

Me: “The U.S. security guarantee has been empirically falsified in real time.”

-----------
So, yup, Bob Kagan and I agree on nearly everything. I need a shower 🤢

Reassuringly though, we still differ on a few fundamental aspects.

First of all, arguably the most important one, the moral aspect. In typical neocon fashion, his article contains not a word about the human cost of this war - not the 165 schoolgirls, not the devastation inflicted on Iranians during 37 days of bombing, not the toll this war is taking on the entire world through its devastating economic consequences (the economic devastation on ordinary people worldwide is referenced only as a political problem for Trump). For him, this is purely a strategic chess problem, morality and people don’t figure in his mental map.

For me, the moral bankruptcy of this war isn't separate from the strategic failure - it is the strategic failure. Much like Gaza can only be a failure because of its sheer abjectness.

Secondly, there is not an instant of reflection in the article on how we got there. Which is unsurprising because he personally, alongside his wife, his brother, and every co-signatory of every PNAC letter, spent a generation pushing for exactly this kind of confrontation. The man spend 30 years advocating for military dominance in the Middle East and hostility towards Iran, thereby forging them as an adversary and facilitating this very war that he now says has “checkmated” America.

I know introspection has never been the neocon forte but at some point you have to stop setting houses on fire and then writing op-eds about how surprising the smoke is.

Last but not least, we differ on what should be done. This is the funniest part of Kagan’s article - showing that the man is decidedly beyond salvation. On one hand he calls this a “checkmate” by Iran, and a U.S. defeat that can “neither be repaired nor ignored,” yet an the other hand his solution for it is… surprise, surprise… a bigger war still!

He writes that what’s to be done is “engage in a full-scale ground and naval war to remove the current Iranian regime, and then to occupy Iran until a new government can take hold.”

The arsonist's solution to the fire is a bigger fire ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For my end, this was the conclusion of my previous article:

"There is almost a Greek tragedy quality to U.S. actions lately where every move taken to escape one’s fate becomes the mechanism that delivers it. The U.S. went to war to reassert dominance - and proved it could no longer dominate. It demanded allies send warships - and revealed it had no real allies. It waged forty years of maximum pressure to break Iran before this moment came - and instead forged the very adversary now capable of meeting it. It started the war in part to have additional leverage over China - and handed the world the spectacle of begging China for help. The prophecy was multipolarity. Every American action to prevent it reveals it instead."

I wouldn’t change a word. The only thing that's changed since I wrote it is that even the arsonists now smell the smoke.

Src for the Atlantic article: https://t.co/ItED9WS9Kn

[pb @msansnom]

https://t.co/O9OhFJErW3

[calle @callebtc]

middle management is not gonna make it

[Luke Gromen @LukeGromen]

Rubio did the meme!

[Sivori @sivori]

Anthropic is buying millions of rare books, scanning and destroying them because legally destruction is the safest option. This was a plot element in the Vernor Vinge novel, "The Rainbow's End", which I read 20 years ago.

[HFI Research @HFI_Research]

On April 12, we published a piece with a section titled, “Why aren’t oil prices higher?”

Here’s what I wrote:

Over the weekend, I had a subscriber express his frustration to me: “How can the oil market be so complacent?”
Let me answer that question by first saying this: I’ve been neck deep in the oil market for the last 11 years. And oil prices almost always trade to extremes. Right before it does, it always gets “obvious” from a fundamental setup standpoint.

I remember a great conversation I had with Nelson Wu of Open Square Capital about the oil market being analogous to toilet paper. You don’t realize how badly you need it until you run out of it.

Oil prices trade on the margin. As long as there are onshore inventories to draw from, traders don’t panic. It’s when you run low on onshore inventories that panic starts to set in.

Goldman published an update on Thursday that basically captured the storage math phenomenon that we are seeing:

Global visible total oil inventories remain bloated relative to historical standards. If, for example, we had started the conflict with global oil inventories at the 2025 lows, WTI and Brent would already be above $200/bbl.

The ~1.4 billion bbl cushion at the start of 2026 is what gave the US time to navigate the Iranian conflict without the oil market blowing up. It was also the same reason why at the beginning of the conflict, I wrote a piece titled, “Why Aren’t Oil Prices At $100?”

But fast forwarding 6-weeks later, the facts have changed. The conflict is ongoing, and that onshore cushion you are seeing in storage is nothing but a mirage. Even if the conflict ends this very second and everything returns to normal, that oil inventory is gone.

Vanished. No more.

In essence, the oil market really should be pricing forward balances as if we are already near 7.6 billion bbls, but it’s not, and this creates the biggest mispricing trade since the COVID lockdown (short oil) trade.

Oil traders, the physical guys, lack both the means and capabilities to drive financial prices higher. Financial markets are exponentially larger than the physical side, but there’s one quirk: expiry.

As the futures market approaches expiry, people who continue to hold the contracts are obligated to deliver the goods (literally). This mechanism will be tested first at the May WTI expiry, where the physical market is already quoted at a +$20 premium to financial prices. It will be tested again in the Brent expiry at the end of the month.

What will happen is that as we get closer to the expiry, market participants who are short have to cover because there’s no way in hell they can deliver the goods physically.

We are literally going to run out of available commercial crude storage. This will force the prompt month higher, which will suck in financial flows into the June contracts. This inflection point will shock market participants awake.

This is one of the main reasons why I’ve remained so calm over the past few weeks. The math is what it is. The Trump administration can jawbone oil prices all they want. Axios can publish whatever headlines it wants, but the reality will be swift and vicious. If you do not have the means to deliver the goods, you have to cover.

[Luke Gromen @LukeGromen]

OPEC is only needed to manage oil prices in a world where the reserve currency has no other anchor, because only a fool would sell finite oil reserves for infinite (non-gold-backed) dollars.

IMO, this may be a big signal, but perhaps not the one some seem to think.

Let’s watch.

[Whitney Baker @TotemMacro]

@LukeGromen @PauloMacro The dumb thing about all this is that the economy definitely *is* collapsing. There’s just a reporting lag. You can see that in the C&I lending. Companies drawing down lines virtually everywhere at the fastest pace since Covid.

[calle @callebtc]

"the feds are now the main speakers at bitcoin conferences, we're winning"

[Harry Halpin - Nym @harryhalpin]

Because I get asked a lot.

Why we must fight Palantir, in brief.

1. Programmers working on the Internet have a moral responsibility to the entire world, not a single country. The Internet has been designed since its inception as a universal system for the sharing of knowledge without censorship. The Internet is not the property of any one government or nation.

2. The Internet enables mass surveillance at a scale unimaginable to the Gestapo and the Cheka. Far too many programmers have wasted their lives at building surveillance systems under the guise of Web advertising. Today, these web tracking systems are being used to monitor, control, and even kill humans by companies like Palantir that seek to combine state violence with corporate efficiency, and thus create a new form of technofascism.

3. Surveillance justified by external national security threats will be turned against citizens inside the nation-state. Mass surveillance was once the exclusive domain of the NSA, but today it has been privatized to corporations like Palantir that are unaccountable to any democratic process. What begins as fear of external foreign nation-states turns inwards to focus on immigrants, dissidents, and eventually to anyone that might challenge the status quo or try to exit an increasingly dysfunctional society.

4. Everyone is a target. The “enemy within” continually expands until it encompasses the entire population of a nation regardless of their status and beliefs, justifying evermore paranoid and totalizing surveillance. The line between policing and military operations blurs, with legal frameworks being replaced by technological violence operating with total impunity.

5. Surveillance can only be defeated by building software and hardware to defend ourselves. Meek calls for regulation or moralizing demands for human rights are useless in this era. Any rights must be enforced by the hard power of code. Code, not laws, can be used to uphold the right to privacy by making surveillance difficult, if not impossible, even by nation-state adversaries.

6. We are ruled by a senile gerontocracy. Unlike the generations that fought in the world wars, most of our current rulers are degenerate pedophiles who would sacrifice the well-being of the youth and the entire planet due to their infantile desire for wealth and power. Technology of surveillance and automated warfare reflects their increasingly desperate attempts to maintain archaic forms of domination.

7. The American Empire is unraveling. Once, the United States of America presided over a globe where it could enforce its rule via the status of the dollar as a global reserve currency and a network of equally global military bases, but new regional powers now directly challenge the United States as its empire dissolves in the face of internal economic stagnation, political corruption, and the inflation of the dollar.

8. In a real war, fantasies of total technological dominance always backfire. When a faceless drone kills a child’s father, that child will one day take revenge regardless of the cost, something forgotten by those raised in comfortable suburbs. Going beyond zero-sum games, one can only truly win a battle against a people by demonstrating your victory provides a better way of life, increased prosperity, and an inspiring philosophy.

9. Oddly enough, proponents of fully automated warfare support a universal draft. Deep-down, these keyboard warriors know that their technofascist fantasies are a paper tiger when up against determined opponents that engage in asymmetric warfare. They also know none of their children will fight in a war for their state but they would be happy to see other people’s children come home in body-bags.

10. The problem is not whether AI weapons will be built; we must hold responsible those who are building them. No matter which country is deploying automated killing machines, no one is absolved from the murder of civilians and the destruction of infrastructure due to the parlour-trick of shifting the blame to AI.

11. Atomic war is on the horizon. As various states descend into wars over increasingly scarce natural resources, the possibility of tactical nuclear strikes over Teheran, Kyiv, and other areas of conflict has returned to the historical stage. Increasingly geriatric and authoritarian rulers face less guardrails than before to deploying nuclear weapons, and may even be willing to sacrifice the survival of humanity to appease their own petty egos.

12. Our goal is a world of peace where every person can be empowered by the Internet. Modern war is the quintessential game of sending young people to the meat-grinder. Why die for the profit of corrupt rulers when one could build real wealth and power for yourself using the Internet?

13. We should fight for the world we want, and build the tools needed by future generations. Pacifism would be suicidal in this period of global turbulence and resource wars, but real hard power lies in technology: Programmers should be creating technologies to live a free life and prosper in a hostile society of surveillance and control, and decentralization is the only way these technologies will survive against the inevitable repression.

14. The State will not help us. The state is a dying pre-Internet institution that increasingly resembles nothing but a Ponzi scheme fueled by taxes and debt. None of the youth alive today will likely inherit any benefits, such as welfare and health care.

15. Centralized and opaque algorithms are a danger to free speech. Propaganda is the flip-side of surveillance, as continual propaganda prevents anyone from even thinking of challenging the system. Social media monopolies promote propaganda to create a generalized idiocy while silencing those that would dare to criticize the reigning order before they can organize against it.

16. Building new forms of social organization with each other is vital to survival. The traditional mediascape of politics and entertainment exists to distract us from building networked solidarity and distributed autonomous organizations across borders. The hierarchical state is as relevant to us as the medieval church and kings were to the formation of the joint-stock corporation and the labour union.

17. Digital identity is the next step in their system of control. Within the next few years, access to the Internet–including in Europe and the United States–will require biometric national identity cards, using the flimsy excuse of “protecting children.” The real goal is to gatekeep free access to subversive political content and halt cross-border communication in order to prevent new forms of self-organization and resistance from emerging.

18. Only when one can be anonymous is one truly free. The freedom to express oneself without censorship and surveillance is a vital precondition for both the autonomous use of reason and the democratic evolution of society. Technology must enable the freedom to selectively reveal ourselves to the world–so that we can become who we want to be–by preserving the right to privacy over the Internet, including not just individual privacy but the right to transact and form contracts privately.

19. America created the first global surveillance state, but it will not be the last. Too many have forgotten or perhaps taken for granted the revelations of Wikileaks and Snowden. States across the world from China to Russia are creating even more powerful global surveillance systems and propaganda machines. Leveraging private defense contracts in countries across the world, Palantir seeks to make itself the operating system of a cross-border global secret state while it pushes its own farcical version of ethno-nationalism.

20. Culture wars are a psyop. It is ironic that “Epstein class” virtue-signals about traditional morality and the superiority of forms of ethno-nationalism, while trying to return to the rule of hereditary elites, even in the United States. Rather than reverse the gains of the Enlightenment, we take the side of our ancestors who fought a centuries-long battle for individual liberty, scientific progress, decentralized markets, bottom-up democracy and the emancipation of humanity from feudal monarchs and their make-believe mythologies.

21. New forms of technology can reshape the world. Technology is not just a tool, but the world we live in and an extension of our cognitive capabilities. The co-operation of humans with the collective intelligence embedded in AI could accelerate human progress and overcome planetary crises such as climate change and atomic war that threatens the survival of our species.

22. Live free or die trying. We must bear eternal vigilance in the struggle against fascism, and the battlefield is technology. There is no middle ground: Technologists must choose whether to work for the enslavement of humanity or to create new spaces for freedom.

These are my personal beliefs, not those of @nym. Yet as a philosopher that founded a tech startup, I have a responsibility to respond to this manifesto of Palantir and it's so-called "philosopher-CEO" Alex Karp.