UNLEASH RFK JR.: Shake up HHS. The department, exposed during the pandemic for its incompetence and groupthink, is in desperate need of reform—which Robert Kennedy Jr., whatever his flaws, will pursue. As Jeffrey Anderson points out, RFK rightly criticized the public-health establishment for protecticing Big Pharma by promoting remdesivir, an expensive drug with no proven effectiveness against Covid, while ignoring evidence that low-cost ivermectin might be effective — and bizarrely launching a public-relations campaign to convince the public that this widely used drug was suitable only for horses.
Yet the FDA wouldn’t even grant that ivermectin was suitable for humans, let alone that it could help fight Covid-19. Channeling its inner Snowball from Animal Farm, the FDA effectively insisted that when it comes to ivermectin, “Four legs good, two legs bad!” The mainstream media then dutifully bleated out the same.
That wasn’t the end of the public-health establishment’s Covid-era depredations. Bureaucrats and officials denied natural immunity, defiantly insisted that masks work, refused to admit that masks undermine human social interaction and cause other harmful effects, and groundlessly asserted that rapidly developed, experimental mRNA vaccines were almost entirely safe and effective in stopping the spread of Covid-19. None of these claims was true.
These examples illustrate that our public-health establishment needs to be shaken up, whether by RFK Jr. or someone else. It is high time for the CDC’s, FDA’s, and NIH’s arrogant rule by “experts” to come to an end.
Genesis, Kissinger’s final book, was co-authored with two eminent technologists, Craig Mundie and Eric Schmidt, and it bears the imprint of those innovators’ innate optimism. The authors look forward to the “evolution of Homo technicus—a human species that may, in this new age, live in symbiosis with machine technology.” AI, they argue, could soon be harnessed “to generate a new baseline of human wealth and wellbeing … [that] would at least ease if not eliminate the strains of labor, class, and conflict that previously have torn humanity apart.” The adoption of AI might even lead to “profound equalizations … across race, gender, nationality, place of birth, and family background.”
Nevertheless, the eldest author’s contribution is detectable in the series of warnings that are the book’s leitmotif. “The advent of artificial intelligence is,” the authors observe, “a question of human survival. … An improperly controlled AI could accumulate knowledge destructively. … The convulsions that will soon bend the collective reality of the planet…mark a fundamental break from the past.” Here, rephrased for Genesis but immediately recognizable, is Kissinger’s original question from his 2018 Atlantic essay “How the Enlightenment Ends”:
[AI’s] objective capacity to reach new and accurate conclusions about our world by inhuman methods not only disrupts our reliance on the scientific method as it has been pursued continuously for five centuries but also challenges the human claim to an exclusive or unique grasp of reality. What can this mean? Will the age of AI not only fail to propel humanity forward but instead catalyze a return to a premodern acceptance of unexplained authority? In short: are we, might we be, on the precipice of a great reversal in human cognition—a dark enlightenment?
In what struck this reader as the book’s most powerful section, the authors contemplate a deeply troubling AI arms race. “If … each human society wishes to maximize its unilateral position,” the authors write, “then the conditions would be set for a psychological death-match between rival military forces and intelligence agencies, the likes of which humanity has never faced before. Today, in the years, months, weeks, and days leading up to the arrival of the first superintelligence, a security dilemma of existential nature awaits.”
If we are already witnessing “a competition to reach a single, perfect, unquestionably dominant intelligence,” then what are the likely outcomes? The authors envision six scenarios, by my count, none of them enticing:
Humanity will lose control of an existential race between multiple actors trapped in a security dilemma.
Humanity will suffer the exercise of supreme hegemony by a victor unharnessed by the checks and balances traditionally needed to guarantee a minimum of security for others.
There will not be just one supreme AI but rather multiple instantiations of superior intelligence in the world.
The companies that own and develop AI may accrue totalizing social, economic, military, and political power.
AI might find the greatest relevance and most widespread and durable expression not in national structures but in religious ones.
Uncontrolled, open-source diffusion of the new technology could give rise to smaller gangs or tribes with substandard but still substantial AI capacity.
Kissinger was deeply concerned about scenarios such as these, and his effort to avoid them did not end with the writing of this book. It is no secret that the final effort of his life—which sapped his remaining strength in the months after his 100th birthday—was to initiate a process of AI arms limitation talks between the United States and China, precisely in the hope of averting such dystopian outcomes.
The authors offer a bracing message, warning that AI tools have already started outpacing human capabilities so people might need to consider biologically engineering themselves to ensure they are not rendered inferior or wiped out by advanced machines.
In a section titled “Coevolution: Artificial Humans,” the three authors encourage people to think now about “trying to navigate our role when we will no longer be the only or even the principal actors on our planet.”
“Biological engineering efforts designed for tighter human fusion with machines are already underway,” they add.
Current efforts to integrate humans with machine include brain-computer interfaces, a technology that the U.S. military identified last year as of the utmost importance. Such interfaces allow for a direct link between the brain’s electrical signals and a device that processes them to accomplish a given task, such as controlling a battleship.
The authors also raise the prospect of a society that chooses to create a hereditary genetic line of people specifically designed to work better with forthcoming AI tools. The authors describe such redesigning as undesirable, with the potential to cause “the human race to split into multiple lines, some infinitely more powerful than others.”
“Altering the genetic code of some humans to become superhuman carries with it other moral and evolutionary risks,” the authors write. “If AI is responsible for the augmentation of human mental capacity, it could create in humanity a simultaneous biological and psychological reliance on ‘foreign’ intelligence.”
Such a physical and intellectual dependence may create new challenges to separate man from the machines, the authors warn. As a result, designers and engineers should try to make the machines more human, rather than make humans more like machines.
After Biden dropped out, he guaranteed that Kamala would win. His Keys proclaimed her victory!
But some other people looked at his stupid “keys” and found that, first of all, they were largely about highly subjective things like whether the short-term economy and the long-term economy were positive for the incumbent or not.
Despite that the fact that America is in the grips of high inflation (short term) and on the edge of a recession (long term), Lichtman gave these two “keys” to Kamala Harris.
Nate Silver said, “Wait a minute, that doesn’t seem right to me.”
Lichtmann blasted him as a know-nothing punk who just didn’t know how to properly work the Magic Keys.
“My prediction for this presidential election was wrong. I own up to it right now. I am taking time off today.””My aim is to assess why the keys were wrong and what we can learn from this era and what the election means for the future of our country going forward.”
That lasted about 48 hours. Within 48 hours, he’d figured out the problem:
Which brings us to the exchange you may have seen last night. If not, do not miss this classic: As Ace writes, “Piers Morgan had [Lichtman] on to offer more excuses for his Fortune Cookies not correctly forecasting the future, but he was confronted by someone smarter, wiser, saner, and more emotionally intact than he is. And I can’t believe I’m saying this, but that Hero was Cenk Uygur:”
Lichtman kept offering a 3M factory’s worth of excuses — misinformation, Musk, and misogyny — for why his Keys failed, arguing that his Keys were as perfect as they ever were, and Uygur basically kept repeating one simple point that, while very basic, was very insightful: “But you were wrong.”
Lichtman began yelling, which he always does when his precious Keys are questioned, and culminated in telling Uygur, who I think is a Muslim, that when he says that Lichtman is wrong and his Keys are dumb, that is committing “blasphemy against me.”
UPDATE: As for Silver himself, he’s sticking around Twitter for surprisingly sane reasons:
The Jack Dorsey 2020-era Twitter is when users could have their accounts deleted or suspended for simply suggesting “learn to code” to a DNC-MSM journalist, and of course when Dorsey’s Chief Legal Officer Vijaya Gadde and “head of trust and safety” Yoel Roth suspended the New York Post’s account at election time because they dared break the story about Hunter’s laptop. Recreating that atmosphere at Bluesky will make it a fun clubhouse for a select group of leftist grandees, but to borrow from Silver, “the most miserable place on earth” for everyone else.
SHE’S J.K. ROWLING. HER CRITICS ARE CRAZY PEOPLE OF NO IMPORTANCE.
This is about as close to "fuck off" as a corporation like HBO is going to put in a press release so I'll take ithttps://t.co/7QNM3eZ7Qw
It’s hard to count the number of celebrities who promised to leave the country if Donald Trump was re-elected this month, but counting how many actually made good on their promise is a little easier. As far as we know, the number is, well, one.
The Wrap reported earlier today that comedian and talk show host Ellen DeGeneres and her wife, Portia de Rossi, have moved to rural England. While they bought their home in the Cotswolds a while ago, they’re officially saying goodbye to the United States soon when they put their Montecito estate on the market. Sources close to the couple claim that Trump’s re-election was the driving force behind the decision.
The Cotswolds, huh? The next season of Clarkson’s Farm could be incredible.
It was quite the flounce. “This is something we have been considering for a while,” The Guardian intoned with the gravity of an Old Testament prophet as it declared in an editorial that the organization would no longer post on X. “The U.S. presidential election campaign served only to underline what we have considered for a long time: that X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse.”
Other users have followed suit, with an exodus of accounts from X to Bluesky, a social media platform that resembles in style the pre-Musk Twitter. Taylor Swift fans are flocking in their thousands, and former CNN anchor Don Lemon posted a lengthy statement outlining his own reasons for relocating. Even the official account of the Clifton Suspension Bridge and Museum in the United Kingdom posted a similar statement, which has led to candlelit vigils and a mass outpouring of public grief.
After TheGuardian’s announcement, many users were quick to point out that misinformation, far from being the publication’s chief concern, appears to be its specialty. Since Musk has introduced “Community Notes” to X, journalists who post falsehoods or misleading articles have quickly been corrected. Inevitably, TheGuardian has been slapped with Community Notes on numerous occasions, which might help explain its decision to withdraw. On its website, TheGuardian proudly boasts that it “delivers fearless, investigative journalism—giving a voice to the powerless and holding power to account.” But whether its executives admit it or not, the publication has developed a reputation for extreme ideological bias.
The frequent “Community-Noting” on X suggests that this reputation is not unfounded. For instance, when TheGuardian posted a piece entitled “England Riots: How Has ‘Two-Tier Policing’ Myth Become Widespread?,” notes were quickly added to provide links to the various articles in which TheGuardian has asserted that “two-tier policing” based on race and sexuality is rife. When it published an article entitled “How Many More Children like Sara Sharif Will Be Killed Before Smacking Is Banned?,” the Community Notes quickly explained that the victim had not merely been “smacked,” but had suffered extreme beatings and multiple forms of torture. All such hideous acts are, of course, already illegal.
Which is why those who write the Grauniad would rather silo themselves with their fellow leftists than compete in an open marketplace of ideas:
Wow. CNN admits that @X now represents the average ideological makeup of the US better than it ever did before @elonmusk bought it. Incredible to see them admit this after all the fearmongering they pushed about X since Elon bought it.pic.twitter.com/BzYUxApUoq
I strongly recommend Simon van Zuylen-Wood’s cover story for New York magazine, in which he talked to voters into New York City’s outer borough neighborhoods that swung hard toward Trump. In neighborhoods with significant Muslim populations, he did hear complaints about Democrats’ positioning on Gaza. But mostly, the message for Democrats was that they’ll need to move rightward to win this rainbow coalition of disgruntled voters back.
Many voters told van Zuylen-Wood that the government was too tolerant of crime and disorder; one man, who said his daughter’s entry into this country was threatened by Trump’s Muslim ban, nonetheless said he was supporting Trump. (He complained about his local public school having students wear colored shirts to form a human pride flag — an activity he asked to have his children excused from — and said he was moving to a neighborhood in Brooklyn where he could send them to a private, religious school.) But most of all, they complained about the migrant crisis, and in a right-wing way: the government had allowed too many migrants in; the migrants caused quality-of-life problems, from illegal vending to prostitution; the government was prioritizing benefits for migrants over programs for those of us who were already here. This being New York City, these complaints often came from voters who are themselves immigrants. “You can see it all, the boobs out,” one Ecuadorean-American woman, a registered Democrat who voted Republican for the first time, remarked to van Zuylen-Wood about prostitution in Corona, Queens. “That is outrageous. That is what I am telling you — especially the Venezuelans, they came with attitude.”
And when these voters looked around at the Democrats who govern them at the federal, state, and local levels, they saw a party that didn’t even appear to be trying.
Democrats have by and large abandoned the business of governing in favor of unpopular social crusades and punishing heretics.
“THE BEST PART IS NO PART:” I hope Elon applies this approach to the federal government, too.
Engineering is the art of efficiently applying physics.
SpaceX Raptor v3 rocket engine is the epitome of the engineering mantra “The best part is no part” — Can't wait to see this marvel of aerospace engineering in action on Starship and Super Heavy Booster 🚀 pic.twitter.com/8WzOLxYXaG
InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a
means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.
