Two countries that can barely agree on the time of day are apparently being nudged — by at least one NYT opinion writer — to set aside their considerable mutual contempt and cooperate on the one thing that might actually end both of them. That’s either the most sensible geopolitical proposal of the decade or a setup for the worst buddy-cop movie ever made. Advanced AI is the kind of problem that doesn’t much care about trade deficits or territorial disputes when it’s rewriting the rules of everything. Strange bedfellows have collaborated before when the alternative was mutual annihilation. Whether these two can manage it while actively trying to kneecap each other on every other front is, to put it generously, an open question.

Article Summary:

Thomas L. Friedman, in a New York Times opinion piece, argues that despite deep geopolitical rivalry, the United States and China share a common and genuinely existential concern: the unchecked development of advanced artificial intelligence. The piece uses the framing of a potential Trump-Xi summit as a hook, suggesting that whatever else divides the two superpowers, AI governance might be the rare table where both have reason to sit down.

The core argument is familiar but underappreciated — that transformative AI poses risks that don’t respect national borders or political allegiances. An AI catastrophe, whether through misalignment, misuse, or an accelerating arms race with no guardrails, is bad for Washington and Beijing alike. The Cold War analogy lurks in the background: even the U.S. and USSR managed nuclear arms treaties at the height of mutual loathing, because the alternative was worse.

What makes the argument worth bookmarking is less the diplomatic prescription than the underlying premise: that AI may be the first genuinely species-level challenge where even rivals have aligned incentives, if they can stop posturing long enough to notice.

Read the Full Article

The post The U.S. and China Should Gang Up on AI first appeared on Sevenelles.

I spend a lot of time marinating in the doom-and-gloom AI discourse — the think-pieces about mass unemployment, the breathless predictions from Silicon Valley prophets who somehow always manage to profit from the panic they’re selling — so when a piece comes along arguing the job apocalypse probably isn’t coming, I want to believe it the way a hypochondriac wants to believe the lump is benign. This New York Times opinion piece offers a more measured take: that history, labor economics, and basic human stubbornness suggest AI will reshape work without simply erasing it. Maybe. Possibly. I’m not betting the house on it, but I’ll take ‘probably fine’ over ‘definitely screwed’ as a working hypothesis for a Tuesday.

Article Excerpt:

The AI job apocalypse has been predicted so many times, by so many confident people, that maybe — just maybe — the confident people are wrong.

Article Summary:

The argument, in short: we’ve been here before. Every major wave of automation — industrial machinery, computers, the internet — triggered the same existential dread about mass joblessness, and somehow the labor market absorbed the shock, mutated, and kept going. New jobs replaced old ones. The economy adapted. People complained a lot but mostly stayed employed.

The piece pushes back against the Silicon Valley consensus that AI is categorically different — smarter, faster, more generalized — and therefore uniquely destructive. The counterargument is that AI is still a tool, that human judgment, creativity, and interpersonal work remain stubbornly hard to automate, and that demand for labor tends to expand alongside productivity gains rather than contract.

There’s also the regulatory and institutional friction angle: companies don’t just flip a switch and replace their workforce. There are contracts, liability concerns, cultural inertia, and a persistent human preference for dealing with other humans in high-stakes situations. Automation takes longer to deploy than the hype cycle suggests.

None of this is a guarantee, and the piece isn’t arguing everything will be fine for everyone. Some jobs will disappear. Some workers will get hurt. Transition costs are real and tend to fall hardest on people who can least absorb them. But ‘painful and uneven transition’ and ‘total civilizational unemployment catastrophe’ are not the same thing — and collapsing that distinction is mostly useful for selling newsletters.

Read the Full Article

The post Maybe We’re Not All Getting Fired by a Chatbot first appeared on Sevenelles.

There was a version of the ultra-wealthy that at least felt some obligation — real or performative — to the world that made them rich. That version is being quietly escorted out. What’s replacing it is a cohort of ideological mercenaries who’ve convinced themselves that hoarding capital and influencing elections is philanthropy, and that Warren Buffett passing around a philanthropy pledge card was somehow the real corruption. What happens when “giving back “is no longer fashionable? I’m guessing “not good things” , and we will all soon find out.

Article Excerpt:

Peter Thiel, the tech billionaire and a frequent Gates critic, said in an interview that he had privately encouraged around a dozen Giving Pledge signers to undo it. ‘Most of the ones I’ve talked to have at least expressed regret about signing it,’ he said.

Article Summary:

In 2010, Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates launched the Giving Pledge — a moral commitment for billionaires to donate more than half their wealth to charity. It was, briefly, the fashionable thing to do. Oval Office visits happened. Fortune covers happened. Over 250 families signed on, including MacKenzie Scott, Mike Bloomberg, and Sam Altman.

The vibe was: big capitalism and big philanthropy can coexist, and being seen as a ‘good billionaire’ actually mattered. Fast forward to now, and the whole thing is being treated like an embarrassing yearbook photo.

Signups have cratered — 113 in the first five years, down to just 4 in 2024. The Trump administration views the Pledge as roughly a punchline. Peter Thiel has been actively lobbying signers to bail, calling it an ‘Epstein-adjacent, fake Boomer club’ (again — the man has his own Epstein ties, so that’s a bold rhetorical swing).

One signer actually unsigned it, which the article notes is ‘without precedent,’ which tells you something about the current climate. The new dominant ideology among ascendant tech billionaires holds that philanthropy is basically a PR scam, and that the real gift to humanity is just making more money and letting it trickle somewhere.

Elon Musk has said his “businesses are philanthropy.” That sentence exists. Meanwhile, the Gates Foundation’s causes — global health, gender equality — are being actively dismantled by the administration that many of these same billionaires helped elect. Also worth noting: the Pledge has no enforcement mechanism whatsoever. It’s a moral commitment.

Which, given the moral inventory of some of its critics, may be precisely the problem.

Read the Full Article

The post Fuck Philanthropy. Our Billionaires Want More Toys! first appeared on Sevenelles.

“Mutual hatred is a national wound that we will have to work to heal, and that will require letting go of who we’ve become. It’s the only way forward for all of us.”

Article Summary:

Esau McCaulley reflects on the dangers of consuming anger and the potential for personal and national healing through compassion and forgiveness. Drawing from his personal experience with an abusive father, he explores how rage can become a defining identity that prevents growth and understanding.

Initially, Esau harbored deep resentment towards his father, who was absent and struggled with addiction. Over time, he realized that his anger had become a form of self-definition, preventing him from moving toward a positive vision of life. When his father eventually apologized, the author was challenged to reimagine his identity beyond being a victim.

This personal journey parallels the author’s observations of current political polarization, particularly regarding issues like immigration and ICE. He suggests that many people, including those in the MAGA movement, might be trapped in cycles of anger and self-righteousness, similar to his own past experience.

Using a biblical parable about a Pharisee and a tax collector, the author illustrates the importance of humility and mercy. He argues that true healing requires acknowledging one’s own flaws and extending compassion to others, even those who have caused harm.

Read the Full Article

The post It’s So Hard Not to Be Consumed by Rage first appeared on Sevenelles.

A leaked Department of Homeland Security (DHS) security threats assessment suggests that the American public is now considered the country’s most significant threat. The document, obtained by journalist Ken Klippenstein, expands the definition of domestic terrorism to include individuals with “class-based or economic grievances,” potentially targeting a wide range of citizens.

The report indicates that domestic violent extremists have been the most active threat actors in recent years, motivated by various factors including anti-government sentiment, racial and ethnic grievances, and conflicts like the Israel-Hamas war. DHS claims the rise in potential threats has been fueled by ongoing global tensions and terrorist media.

The assessment appears to challenge constitutional protections of free speech and protest, particularly in light of recent controversial government actions. In Minnesota, for example, DHS branded protesters as “domestic terrorists” following the shooting of Renee Nicole Good, a U.S. citizen, by ICE agents.

The new broad definition of domestic terrorism could potentially criminalize these acts of civic resistance, placing a more severe target on citizens challenging government actions. The report suggests a concerning shift in how the government perceives and responds to public dissent, potentially undermining fundamental rights to free expression and protest.

Link to the DHS document leak: https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/leaked-doc-homeland-securitys-domestic

Read the Full Article

The post DHS Thinks You Are Biggest Threat to America first appeared on Sevenelles.

Dana Milbank discovers hope for reversing social media’s societal damage: A group of tech entrepreneurs from companies like Twitter, Pinterest, and Google are developing West Co., a new platform called “Tangle” that aims to help people live more meaningful lives through AI technology. Founders Christopher “Biz” Stone and Evan Sharp, who acknowledge their previous contributions to potentially harmful social media platforms, are seeking redemption by creating a purpose-discovery tool.

Tangle uses AI to help users define their life purposes by analyzing their calendars, photos, and personal information. The platform encourages users to set intentions, receive support from a community, and reflect on meaningful experiences. Unlike traditional tech products, West Co. focuses on human flourishing rather than maximizing screen time.

The company’s approach differs from typical Silicon Valley culture by incorporating rituals, moments of silence, and a focus on personal growth. Their goal is to use technology to help people live more intentionally and connect with causes greater than themselves.

Early testing shows promising results, with employees experiencing significant personal transformations. For instance, the COO quit her job to spend more time with her daughter, and Stone committed to being more present for his son.

While the platform is still in development and lacks a clear revenue model, the founders are self-funded and have received $29 million in seed funding. They aim to create a tool that helps people turn off “autopilot” and discover more meaningful life purposes.

The project represents a potential alternative approach to technology that prioritizes human well-being over engagement metrics and seeks to address the negative impacts of previous digital innovations.

Read the Full Article

The post Social Media for People Who Hate Social Media first appeared on Sevenelles.

Despite widespread perceptions of moral decline, research suggests that human values and behavior remain fundamentally positive across different cultures and demographics. Multiple studies indicate that people consistently rank loyalty, honesty, and helpfulness as their highest values, while power and wealth rank lowest.

Contrary to popular belief, empirical evidence shows that most people tend to behave morally. For instance, in public conflicts, bystanders intervene in nine out of ten cases. Studies across various countries demonstrate prosocial behaviors like returning lost wallets with money and spending significant amounts on others or charitable causes.

The perception of moral decline can be attributed to several factors, including media’s focus on negative events and social media’s amplification of extreme views. News outlets often highlight negative incidents, creating a skewed representation of human behavior. Additionally, people with extreme political views and online bots are more likely to post inflammatory content.

Research suggests that misperceiving others’ values can have negative consequences. People who believe society is becoming more selfish are less likely to volunteer or participate in civic activities. Conversely, understanding that most people share similar compassionate values can increase trust and hope.

The evidence does not deny that some harmful behaviors exist, but it challenges the narrative of widespread moral deterioration. By promoting positive interactions, volunteering, and focusing on kindness, individuals can contribute to maintaining a cooperative and empathetic society.

Ultimately, the research suggests that moral decline is not inevitable, and people have the power to shape societal outcomes through their collective actions and perceptions.

Read the Full Article

The post Think The World Is Getting Worse? Science Has Some Surprising Good News first appeared on Sevenelles.

“The right to assemble and protest is enshrined in American law, but it can still be dangerous to hit the streets to make your voice heard. Your devices are a treasure trove of information about you, and you may not always know who’s collecting that data. Take a few minutes before you go to assess your digital and physical safety.”

Article Summary:

The right to protest is protected in American law, but digital devices can compromise personal safety and privacy. Phones are particularly vulnerable to tracking and surveillance by law enforcement and government agencies.

Key digital risks during protests include:

• Cellular, GPS, and Wi-Fi tracking
• Stingray devices that intercept phone signals
• Potential data sharing by tech companies
• Location tracking through smart devices
• Facial recognition technologies
• Social media information exposure

To minimize digital risks, protesters should:

• Device Preparation:
• Turn off Wi-Fi and Bluetooth
• Disable location services
• Consider leaving personal phones at home
• Use a “burner” phone if possible

Communication:

• Use encrypted messaging apps like Signal
• Set messages to automatically delete
• Be cautious about taking/sharing photos
• Avoid showing identifiable features in images

The Electronic Frontier Foundation recommends using passcodes instead of biometric authentication and being strategic about digital presence during protests. While digital tools can help coordinate and document events, they can also expose participants to potential tracking and legal complications.

Ultimately, the goal is to balance effective communication and organizing with personal digital safety and privacy protection.

Read the Full Article

The post Protest-Proof Your Phone in Minutes first appeared on Sevenelles.

“People consistently underestimate how much they would enjoy just thinking.“

Article Summary:

In today’s digital age, people frequently turn to their phones during moments of downtime, checking them up to 50 times daily. However, research suggests that allowing one’s mind to wander instead could offer significant benefits for personal well-being, problem-solving, and relationships.

Contrary to popular belief, daydreaming can be more enjoyable than anticipated. A 2022 study revealed that people consistently underestimate the pleasure of simply thinking, often overestimating boredom. This mental wandering is uniquely human, helping us learn, imagine scenarios, and develop empathy.

Daydreaming is particularly effective for problem-solving. Researchers found that people are more likely to resolve complex issues after periods of mind-wandering, even when not consciously focusing on the problem. Neuroscience research shows that the brain remains active during these seemingly idle moments, with different regions continuing to work.

Additionally, daydreaming can enhance social connections. Studies demonstrate that imagining pleasant interactions with loved ones can increase emotional closeness and help individuals simulate and prepare for future social situations. This mental “time travel” allows people to explore potential scenarios and learn from past experiences.

Experts recommend deliberately creating opportunities for mind-wandering by engaging in simple, automatic activities like walking or puzzles. They also suggest focusing on positive, meaningful thoughts to make daydreaming more constructive.

Ultimately, resisting the urge to constantly check phones and instead allowing the mind to wander can be refreshing, providing a sense of thought ownership and potentially leading to more meaningful experiences.

Read the Full Article

The post Put Down Your Phone and Daydream Instead first appeared on Sevenelles.

The post Why People Are So Confident When They’re Wrong first appeared on Sevenelles.