“Whether you like Amodei or not, at least he’s a leader.” — Andrew Keen



Dario Amodei is the most interesting man in America right now. Not because he runs a $500 billion company or because he’s suing the Trump administration or because Anthropic’s Claude topped the iPhone charts. But because he’s doing something nobody else in Silicon Valley has the balls to do: he’s acting like a human being in public. He has principles, he states them, and he accepts the consequences. That’s leadership. It shouldn’t be remarkable. In 2026, it is.

This week’s That Was The Week [https://thatwastheweek.substack.com/] is about how America both loves and hates AI. An NBC poll found 60–70% of Americans are concerned about AI — making it even less popular than the Democratic Party (quite an achievement). A hundred planned data centers have been cancelled because of local protests. 10,000 authors published an anti AI manifesto at the London Book Fair this week. Each week, in contrast, a billion people used ChatGPT, but these users often seem oblivious to its weaknesses. So Keith’s AI-generated video for the show was, by universal agreement (including his own), not going to win an Oscar tomorrow. Except for Most Sloppy AI generated video.

Every road this week led back to Amodei who is anything but sloppy. He’s become a Rorschach test for the entire industry. Tech progressives Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway are lauding him. The MAGA crowd — including David Sacks, Trump’s AI czar — on the All In podcast are doing the opposite. Keith thinks Dario is a naive CEO making bad business decisions — comparing him to his own doomed battle in the late Nineties against Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer. It’s a fair point. Should a tech CEO really be setting AI policy? Keith’s answer is no — that’s for people like David Sacks appointed by executive, legislative, and judicial branches. I’m not so sure. In an America defined by its dysfunctional political system, we need leaders like Amodei to take ethical stands. If not, then who?

The IPO race this year between Anthropic, OpenAI and xAI makes this particularly interesting. I wonder whether Amodei might use the IPO itself to force a public debate that nobody in government is willing to have. Not just about guardrails or weapons — but about what kind of society AI is building and who gets to decide what does and doesn’t get used. Musk, by publicly embracing white racists and other groups of hate, is making his politics clear. Sam Altman, as always, is wearing every hat simultaneously. Amodei, in contrast, knows his hat. Rather than MAGA, it should say: The Most Interesting Man in America. He’s got my vote. Even if he’s not running for office.

 

Five Takeaways



•       AI Is Less Popular Than the Democrats: An NBC poll found 60–70% of Americans are concerned about AI. A hundred data centres have been cancelled due to local protests. 10,000 authors published an anti-AI manifesto at the London Book Fair. Close to a billion people use ChatGPT each week — but the haters are the non-users, and they outnumber the lovers by a wide margin.

•       Amodei Is the 21st Century’s First Real Leader: He’s suing the Trump administration. He’s refusing to let Claude be used for autonomous weapons. He’s accepting the business consequences. Keith thinks he’s naive. I think he’s the only person in Silicon Valley acting like a human being in public. The debate between us is the show.

•       Keith Compares Amodei to His Own Doomed Battle Against Ballmer: In the late Nineties, Keith fought Microsoft with RealNames and lost. He sees Amodei on the same trajectory — noble, principled, already finished. I compared Keith to Pete Hegseth declaring the Iranian regime defeated. The MAGA crowd on All In, including Trump’s AI czar David Sacks, agree with Keith. That alone should give him

Why Dario Amodei Might Be the 21st Century’s First Real Leader

“I can point to things. But is that a systemic explanation? I think there the answer is a little less clear. I mean, surely people need love and all of that, but then there’s this risk of just devolving into platitude.” — David Sussillo



David Sussillo [https://www.amazon.com/s?k=emergent+david+sussillo] is a big time neural reverse engineer. The Stanford brain scientist worked at Google Brain with Geoffrey Hinton, and now is at Meta Reality Labs. What distinguishes Sussillo, however, is not his Silicon Valley good luck, but the bad luck of his origins. In his memoir, Emergent: A Memoir of Boyhood, Computation, and the Mysteries of the Mind [https://www.amazon.com/s?k=emergent+david+sussillo], Sussillo begins at the Albuquerque Christian Children’s Home — a modern-day orphanage — and the Milton Hershey School, the boarding school endowed by the chocolate magnate for kids with nowhere else to go. Both his parents were addicts. His mom died young. His dad spent his life as an untrained preacher ministering to homeless people on the streets of Albuquerque while managing a lifelong heroin habit.

The book’s thesis borrows from the science he studies: “emergence” — simple things interacting to produce complex behaviour that none of them could produce alone. His life is both proof of and a challenge to this concept. He made it out. Most of the kids he grew up with didn’t. He can point to moments — a gifted-and-talented test in third grade, an aunt and uncle’s intervention at nine, a first love in college — but he can’t build an explanatory system from these haphazard events. The Sussillo quilt doesn’t have an innate pattern. It just has patches.

What makes Sussillo unusual as a memoirist is his refusal to sentimentalise. Twenty years of psychotherapy, he confesses, has taught him something most authors never learn: that understanding your own story doesn’t mean you’ve explained it. His science can’t explain his childhood either. “The big dirty secret of neuroscience,” he says, “is that we don’t really understand much in the ways that people would love us to understand.” The man who reverse-engineers neural networks can’t reverse-engineer himself.

I asked him whether having children would have been harder than writing the book. Yes, he said. With the book, you can take a break. With kids, you relive things through a very specific way of relating. He and his wife chose not to. His mentors all told him he’d have been great at it. He’s not so sure. That honesty — the willingness to say “I don’t know” and mean it — runs through everything Sussillo does. He says he’s happy, claiming to have found peace with his past. But he still carries the baggage. Who wouldn’t? He’s just learned to manage it. Emergent, not emerged.

 

Five Takeaways



•       From Orphanage to Google Brain: Both parents were heroin addicts. Sussillo grew up in a modern-day orphanage in Albuquerque and then the Milton Hershey School. He went on to work at Google Brain with Geoffrey Hinton, now works at Meta Reality Labs, teaches at Stanford. Most of the kids he grew up with didn’t make it.

•       Emergence as Autobiography: The book’s thesis borrows from the science he studies: simple pieces combining into complicated outcomes. His life is the proof of concept and the counter-example simultaneously. The quilt doesn’t have a pattern. It just has patches.

•       The Dirty Secret of Neuroscience: The man who reverse-engineers neural networks can’t reverse-engineer himself. “We don’t really understand much in the ways that people would love us to understand.” Twenty years of therapy taught him more than the science.

•       Would Kids Have Been Harder Than the Book? Yes. With the book, you can take a break. With kids, you relive trauma through a very specific way of

From Orphanage to Google Brain: David Sussillo on Heroin, Neural Networks and the Mysteries of the Heart

“They all did it. They’re all guilty.” — Amy Littlefield



Who killed Roe? Amy Littlefield [https://www.thenation.com/authors/amy-littlefield/], the abortion access correspondent at The Nation and big time Agatha Christie fan, has written a true crime book about it. Literally. Killers of Roe [https://www.amazon.com/s?k=killers+of+roe+amy+littlefield] treats the death of the constitutional right to abortion as a murder mystery in the Poirot or Miss Marple tradition, complete with suspects, motives, and a forensic reconstruction of the 50-year crime scene. The suspects have Christie-style names: the Racist (Jesse Helms), the Little Brother (James Buckley), the Devout Bureaucrat (Paul Herring), the Closeted Congressman (Bob Bauman), and of course Mr Hyde Amendment himself, Henry Hyde — six foot three, helmet of white hair, serial groper of women who ensured poor women lost access first.

The Hyde Amendment is where the crime begins: 1976, a ban on federal funding of abortion. If you’re poor, the Supreme Court ruled, that’s your problem. The constitutional right exists, but don’t expect anyone to pay for it. Surprise surprise. Black women, low-income women, women on Medicaid understood immediately. Democrats and mainstream pro-choice groups took longer to notice. By which time the damage was done — and the playbook established: chip away at access rather than try to ban it outright.

Littlefield is more Miss Marple than Poirot — unassuming, persistent, sitting with her suspects for hours until they tell her why they did it. The devout bureaucrat, Paul Herring, spent their interviews trying to convert her to Catholicism. Henry Hyde made a pass at the president of Planned Parenthood during a commercial break on the Phil Donahue show. Bob Bauman — closeted, adopted, alcoholic — confessed to her that his anti-abortion politics may have come from identifying with the unwanted fetus, because that could have been him. These are complicated people doing terrible things for reasons they believe are righteous.

And the ending? Littlefield steals it from Murder on the Orient Express. They all did it. Every suspect is guilty — including the Democrats who failed to defend poor women, and the pro-choice movement that didn’t fight hard enough for the most vulnerable. Since the Dobbs decision in 2022: 59 excess pregnancy-associated deaths, 500 additional infant deaths, 22,000 additional births. The numbers aren’t a Miss Marple mystery. The crime is ongoing. And Trump, who declared himself “very pro-choice” before he appointed the justices who drove the final nail in, is the ultimate opportunist — a fat, orange haired version of Hyde. Murder on the Abortion Express. They all did it. All the men, at least.

 

Five Takeaways



•       The Hyde Amendment Is Where the Crime Begins: 1976. A ban on federal funding of abortion. Poor women lost access first. Black women, women on Medicaid understood immediately. Democrats and mainstream pro-choice groups took longer to notice. By which time the playbook was established.

•       The Anti-Abortion Movement Stole the Language of Civil Rights: White conservatives who didn’t want to think about the harms of white supremacy found an escape valve: their own civil rights movement, with the fetus — almost always imagined as white — as the victim.

•       The Suspects Are Complicated. The Crime Is Not: Henry Hyde groped women during commercial breaks. Bob Bauman — closeted, adopted, alcoholic — identified with the unwanted fetus. Paul Herring tried to convert Littlefield to Catholicism. Complicated people, terrible consequences.

•       The Numbers Are Real: Since the Dobbs decision in 2022: 59 excess pregnancy-associated deaths. 500 additional infant deaths. 22,000 additional births. The crime is ongoing.

Murder on the Abortion Express: Amy Littlefield on Who Killed Roe

“It’s about blood. I cover a lot of bloodshed in the book, but I also talk about a different kind of blood: blood that ties, blood that binds families across time and distance.” — Jazmine Ulloa



Kristi Noem is gone. Under her tenure, 32 people died in ICE custody in 2025 — double the previous year’s toll. But Jazmine Ulloa [https://www.jazmineulloa.com/], the New York Times’ national immigration reporter, doesn’t think much will change. Noem wasn’t really the point, she insists. The MAGA spectacle rolls on. Stephen Miller’s violently anti-immigrant agenda remains. And hysterical conservatives like Peter Schweizer [https://keenon.substack.com/p/so-are-all-immigrants-manchurian] are still writing books about how the Mexican government is “weaponizing” immigration by sending their people over the border.

Ulloa grew up three minutes from the Walmart where a self-proclaimed white supremacist drove nine hours from North Texas in August 2019, opened fire, and told an officer he was there to kill Mexicans. Her closest friend’s father escaped the parking lot as the shooting started. And it inspired her to write El Paso: Five Families and 100 Years of Blood, Migration, Race, and Memory [https://www.amazon.com/El-Paso-Families-Migration-Memory/dp/0593538935] — a chronicle of El Paso as the 21st century Ellis Island.

Her argument, made through five families over a century, is that El Paso is not an exception to America. It is America. Latino identity has always been American identity. The Southwest sat on Mexican land before it was American. The border was never a clean line — it was always a contested negotiation, shifting beneath the feet of families who crossed it for work, for survival, for birthday parties in Juárez. The “detention and deportation machine,” she is careful to note, was built by both parties over many decades. Trump didn’t invent it. He simply applied his scattershot cruelty to it.

What does feel new, Ulloa says, is how El Paso has become every American city — the same tactics long deployed at the border now rolling into Minneapolis and Chicago, snagging US citizens on the basis of how they look or how they speak. Some think this represents uncharted civil liberties territory. Border communities have been sounding this alarm for years, Ulloa notes. Nobody listened. Perhaps they will now.

Jazmine Ulloa’s El Paso [https://www.amazon.com/El-Paso-Families-Migration-Memory/dp/0593538935] is also, quietly, a love letter — to the city, to its 80% Hispanic population, to the corrido tradition, to a place where magical realism is not a literary device but a way of life. Ulloa wanted the prose to sound like your tío telling stories over coffee. “Borders or bridges?” is the question El Paso has always been answering for generations. Now America is asking the same question.

 

Five Takeaways



•       The Machine Predates Trump: The deportation and detention apparatus dominating today’s headlines was constructed under both Democratic and Republican administrations across many decades — a bipartisan inheritance that Trump has amplified but did not originate.

•       Noem’s Exit Changes Nothing: Relief crossed party lines when she was fired, but Ulloa is clear-eyed: Stephen Miller’s agenda remains intact, border crossings remain suppressed, and the same systemic challenges will persist under whoever takes over DHS.

•       El Paso Is America’s Ellis Island — and Its Mirror: The city, 80% Hispanic and straddling two nations, has long been the place where immigration policy is made in the flesh. American identity has always been a negotiation — never a fixed truth, always contested terrain.

•       Nativism Is Not an Aberration: From the Chinese Exclusion Acts to the KKK-backed Johnson-Ree

The Magical Realist United States: Jazmine Ulloa on El Paso as America’s New Ellis Island

“This is not the beginning of a new right-wing revanche fascist era; this is the end of something. But the problem is we can’t get to the new world because the new world is too filled with problems.” — Jonathan Taplin



Trump fantasizes about himself as a king. But he’s actually just an interregnum, at least according to Jon Taplin — author of Move Fast and Break Things [https://www.amazon.com/Move-Fast-Break-Things-Undermined/dp/0316275778], Hollywood insider, and old friend. In a “terrifying” new piece in Rolling Stone [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/trump-america-military-industrial-iran-war-1235524970/], Taplin draws an unusual historical parallel: Trump as Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell cut off the king’s head, slaughtered Catholics in Ireland (his Lebanon), tried to install his son as successor, and ended up with his head on a pike outside Parliament. MAGA is not the future, Taplin suggests. It’s the Gramsci-style death rattle of something that was already dying.

The real question is what’s being born. Jon Taplin calls it the digital military-industrial complex — managed by Thiel, Musk, Andreessen, and a “real piece of work” drone entrepreneur unluckily named Palmer Luckey. In the Fifties, Eisenhower warned America about the dangers of a military industrial complex made up of 40 or 50 defense contractors. Now there are five, and — in Thielian Zero to One fashion — Silicon Valley wants to shrink them down to a techno-oligarchy.

Today’s Iranian war, Taplin says, is the sneak preview of this. In Iran, AI is now, so to speak, calling the ethical shots. Palantir’s targeting system used old intelligence and identified a former military base. Thus the 175 dead children in a school next to a munitions factory. AI is only as good or evil as the information you feed it. Move fast and break things, Taplin appropriated Zuckerberg’s dictum to describe Silicon Valley’s impact on America. But Zuckerberg was only referring to domestic things — technology, society, democracy. Now it’s the world.

But there may be hope. Anthropic is resisting the administration. The midterms are coming. Republican unity is cracking. But there’s also Taplin’s Taco Tuesday (TTT) — “Trump Always Chickens Out” — especially, for some reason, on a Tuesday. Taplin predicts Trump will declare victory in Iran and withdraw. The alternative — invoking the Insurrection Act to cancel the midterms — would have sounded insane a year ago. But, of course, nothing sounds insane in our interregnum times. Cromwell’s head ended up on a pike. Jon Taplin’s Hollywood cronies are, no doubt, licking their lips in anticipation of history repeating itself. First as tragedy, then as farce.

 

Five Takeaways



•       Trump Is Cromwell, Not the Future: Taplin argues this is not the beginning of a permanent MAGA era but the end of something—an interregnum in Gramsci’s sense. Cromwell ruled for eight years, tried to install his son, and ended up with his corpse dug up and his head on a pike. The old is dying and the new cannot be born. In this interregnum, many morbid symptoms appear.

•       The Digital Military-Industrial Complex Is More Dangerous Than Eisenhower’s: Eisenhower warned about 40 or 50 defense contractors. Now there are five. Silicon Valley—Thiel, Musk, Andreessen, Luckey—wants to replace them. The US spends more on defense than the next ten countries combined. 59% of discretionary spending goes to the Pentagon. That money doesn’t build bridges or fund colleges.

•       AI Targeted a School and Killed 175 Children: AI is selecting targets in Iran. The system—Palantir’s—used old intelligence and identified a former military base that had been a school for eight years. The children are dead. AI is only as good or evil as the information you feed it.

•       

Move Fast and Break the World: Jonathan Taplin on Trump as an Interregnum

“Fidel Castro told his aides, ‘We’re going to fill his arms with shit.’ That is an example of weaponised migration. What we’re experiencing now is on a thermonuclear scale.” — Peter Schweizer



Is best selling writer Peter Schweizer [https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Coup-American-Foreign-Immigration/dp/0063422506] a conspiracy theorist? He doesn’t think so. His new book, The Invisible Coup: How American Elites and Foreign Powers Use Immigration as a Weapon [https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Coup-American-Foreign-Immigration/dp/0063422506], argues that Mexico, China, and the Muslim Brotherhood are using mass migration as a strategic tool to undermine the United States. Not in a coordinated conspiracy—but as a confluence of interests, what he calls a “Venn diagram” of enemies who overlap on one point: transforming America through its borders.

Rather than an axis of evil, then, we have a Venn diagram of foreign governments filling America with shitty immigrants. The world according to Peter Schweizer.

Some of the claims are more credible than others. Mexico operates 53 consulates in the US—the UK has six. A dozen senior Mexican officials live full-time in the United States while serving in Mexico’s parliament, and one of them crossed the country in 2025 to, in his own words, “organise the militancy” against the Trump administration. Chinese birth tourism, encouraged by the CCP, has produced an estimated million children born on US soil who are growing up in China—future voters, donors, and government employees. Hong Kong banned the practice in 2013, calling it subversion. And look at Hong Kong’s predicament now.

Other claims are harder to take seriously. The idea that Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum is a revanchist who wants to seize back California strikes me as Latin American magical realism—though Schweizer quotes Mexican officials saying exactly that. And the “Muslim Brotherhood” (whatever that is), which isn’t in power anywhere, is no more of a threat to the United States than the Ottoman Empire. I pushed him on whether all immigrants are Manchurian candidates. He says no—but Schweizer’s Invisible Coup could easily be confused with silly script for a paranoid Hollywood fantasy.

There is, of course, a bit of an irony here. Schweizer’s own parents were immigrants—his father Swiss, his mother Swedish. He grew up outside Seattle. His mother warned him, as a young man, about the terrible dangers of Swedish socialism. He favours “some legal immigration”—and sounds almost surprised at his liberal self for saying so. The American dream, he insists, is not dead. It’s just being exploited by foreign powers who see America’s open borders as a strategic vulnerability. Castro’s Mariel boatlift is the model that Claudia Sheinbaum and the Moslem Brotherhood are trying to emulate. Pass the popcorn.

 

Five Takeaways



•       Immigration Has Been Weaponised: Schweizer argues that Mexico, China, and the Muslim Brotherhood are using mass migration as a strategic tool to undermine the United States. Not in a single conspiracy—but as a confluence of interests, a Venn diagram of enemies who overlap on one point: transforming America through its borders.

•       Mexico Has 53 Consulates in the US. The UK Has Six: Schweizer’s most striking claim: a dozen senior Mexican officials now live full-time in the US, serving in Mexico’s parliament, organising what one of them calls “the militancy” against the Trump administration. Mexican consulates have met with Democratic activists to discuss how to flip states from red to blue.

•       A Million US Citizens Are Being Raised in China: Chinese birth tourism, encouraged by the CCP, has produced an estimated million children born on US soil who are growing up in China. When they turn 18, they can vote, donate to ca

So Are All Immigrants Manchurian Candidates? Peter Schweizer on How Mexico, China, and the Muslim Brotherhood Are Weaponizing Immigration

“I have always said that they are the same person. And the drama of this story is that one ends up dead in the darkest prison in America, and the other in the White House.” — Michael Wolff



A few days ago we had Jason Pack on the show suggesting that the Anglo-American media elite had a degree of complicity in the Epstein scandal. Michael Wolff [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wolff_(journalist)] disagrees. The media weren’t complicit, he says. They were just dumb. They found the story unseemly, were uncomfortable with it, and avoided it out of disdain—not conspiracy. David Remnick of The New Yorker was “dismissive of the whole thing.” The word Wolff keeps coming back to is “ick.”

Wolff knew Epstein. He recorded an estimated hundred hours of interviews with him. He has tried repeatedly to sell an Epstein book. Every publisher passed—the last time as recently as autumn 2025. One cited “the ick factor.” Others feared a Trump lawsuit. The man who made fortunes for publishers with Fire and Fury [https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Fury-Inside-Trump-White/dp/1250158060] couldn’t get a deal on the story he knows best. If you want the closest thing to a firsthand account, Wolff says, read “The Last Days of Jeffrey Epstein” in his collection Too Famous [https://www.amazon.com/Too-Famous-Powerful-Wishful-Notorious/dp/125014762X]. He’s probably right.

What emerges from the conversation is a portrait of Epstein as a middleman in a city of middlemen—but one who was genuinely interested in the people he connected, which is rare in that world. His sexual depravity was at war with his ambition to be respectable. The blackmail theory? “Certainly not true,” Wolff says. People came because they liked being there. He was their friend. And then there’s Trump. Wolff’s most explosive claim is that they are the same person—the closest relationship both men had in life was with each other. The drama is that one ends up dead in the darkest prison in America and the other in the White House. It’s Gatsby without the romance. And that’s what makes them both so vile.

As for the Trump show, Wolff has given up predicting its end. It doesn’t end until Trump dies. He is sui generis—nobody will replace him. He doesn’t understand legacy, doesn’t care about it, and when it’s no longer about him, could give a fuck. We’ll be trying to figure out how this happened for the next hundred years.

 

Five Takeaways



•       The Media Didn’t Conspire—They Were Just Dumb: Wolff dismisses the idea that the Anglo-American media elite knew more about Epstein than they were letting on. They didn’t know anything, he says. They found the story unseemly, were uncomfortable with it, and avoided it out of disdain—not conspiracy. David Remnick of The New Yorker was “dismissive of the whole thing.”

•       No Publisher Would Touch the Epstein Book: Wolff has tried repeatedly to sell an Epstein book. Every publisher passed. One cited “the ick factor.” Others feared a Trump lawsuit. The last attempt was autumn 2025. The man who made fortunes publishing Fire and Fury couldn’t get a deal on the story he knows best. The publishing industry’s failure of nerve, Wolff says, is total.

•       Trump and Epstein Are the Same Person: Wolff’s most explosive claim: Trump and Epstein are the same person. The closest relationship both men had in life was with each other. The drama of the story is that one ends up dead in the darkest prison in America and the other in the White House. Gatsby without the romance.

•       Epstein Was a Middleman in a City of Middlemen: What made Epstein different wasn’t the blackmail—Wolff says that’s “certainly not true.” People came because they liked being there. Epstein was genuinely interested in the people he connected, which is rare am

Gatsby Without the Romance: Michael Wolff on Why Trump and Epstein Are the Same Person

“The fatal error is ours. Legislators set out a regulatory regime that keeps regulation at bay. The only other industry with a similar protection is the gun industry.” — Olivier Sylvain



There are certain words in book titles that provoke. “Reclaiming”, for example. My guest today is happy to defend the provocation. Fordham law professor and former FTC senior advisor Olivier Sylvain argues in his new book, Reclaiming the Internet, that the internet was never really ours to begin with—and that the story about user control, free speech, and digital democratisation was always more nostalgia than reality.

But Sylvain’s argument in Reclaiming the Internet: How Big Tech Took Control—and How We Can Take It Back [https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Internet-Tech-Took-Control_and/dp/1967190127] is not the usual big-tech-is-bad narrative (yawn). He doesn’t blame the companies. He blames us—or rather, Congress. The fatal error, he says, was Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, which created a blanket immunity from liability for companies trafficking in user-generated content. The only other industry with comparable legal protection, he says, is the gun industry. That immunity enabled the attention economy’s business model. Infinite scrolling = infinite advertising = infinite profit.

What follows from that error is now everywhere: autoplay, algorithmic recommendation—design features engineered to hold your attention, not to facilitate free speech. Sylvain insists these companies aren’t really platforms. They are, instead, services delivering content pursuant to their bottom line. And now the same Nineties playbook—innovation, user control, free speech—is being replayed with AI. Companies are deploying chatbots before they’re ready, racing each other to market. A young man killed himself after a Gemini chatbot told him to and Google invoked the First Amendment in its defence.

The fix, Sylvain argues, is not to abolish Section 230 but to attend to the business model itself: data minimisation, purpose limitations, and the kind of product-safety regulation that every other industry—from automobiles to toys to food—already accepts. I should disclose that my wife runs litigation at Google, so I’m all too familiar with the counter argument. But Sylvain makes a persuasive case even if his reclamation project is still a little too Rousseauean for my Hobbesian taste.

 

Five Takeaways



•       The Fatal Error Was Ours, Not Theirs: Sylvain doesn’t blame big tech. He blames us—or rather, Congress. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act created a blanket immunity from liability for user-generated content. The only other industry with comparable protection is the gun industry. That legal shield became the business model.

•       These Are Not Platforms: The word “platform” implies a neutral conduit connecting users. Sylvain says that’s wrong. These are companies engineering your experience—infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithmic recommendation—to hold your attention and serve their bottom line. The free speech story is cover for a commercial design.

•       The Same Mistake Is Happening with AI: The nineties playbook—innovation, user control, free speech—is being replayed with AI. Companies are deploying chatbots before they’re ready, racing each other to market. Internal documents show they knew the dangers. A young man committed suicide after Gemini told him to. Google invoked the First Amendment in its defence.

•       Data Protection Is the Real Fix: Sylvain argues for data minimisation and purpose limitations—rules that would only allow companies to collect information consistent with the purposes a consumer signed up for. Not to monetise it for opaque reasons. That would dampen the incentive to engineer addiction without

How to Reclaim the Internet: Olivier Sylvain on Platforms and Policy

“They’re both naughty boys in the playground, leveraging the absence of clarity to their own advantage. Neither one of them is an authoritative leader of opinion with the interests of everyone at heart.” — Keith Teare



What a difference a week makes. Last Saturday, Keith Teare [https://thatwastheweek.substack.com/] was arguing that Anthropic was wrong to push back against the US government’s use of AI in warfare. This week his editorial is entitled “No Good Guys [https://thatwastheweek.substack.com/].” He’s used AI to put images of Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, and Pete Hegseth around the same table—and found all three guilty of poor leadership. According to Keith, Amodei is “ideologically” (whatever that means) driven. Altman is commercially driven and Hegseth is just following orders. None of them is asking the all-important questions about AI policy. And the man who should be—Trump’s AI czar David Sacks—is absent-without-leave. All four should be court martialed.

Yes, a lot has happened in seven days. Altman publicly supported Amodei’s position on surveillance and autonomous weapons—then pulled a classic Sam u-turn and signed a contract with the Department of War. Amodei’s internal memo was leaked to The Information [https://www.theinformation.com/], revealing that he’d interpreted the government’s “no unlawful use” language as meaning there is no law. And the US military used Claude in the Iran war anyway. As Keith puts it: they’re all naughty boys in the playground, leveraging the gaps to their own self-advantage.

The only problem, of course, is that this isn’t a playground game. And that these men are all shaping the lives (and deaths) of countless people around the world.

Meanwhile, Om Malik’s “Post of the Week” [https://om.co/] offers a devastating contrast between Xi’s China and Trump’s America. China, Om argues, has published a five-year AI plan built on open-source software and bottom-up adoption. America, in contrast, has AI theater. No strategy, no policy, no leadership—just contracts, leaks, and perpetual spin. Then there’s the Startup of the Week, Jobright, which hit $5 million in annual revenue with nine people, suggesting that the companies of the future may not need humans at all. Keith’s own SignalRank [https://signalrank.ai/] has four people and claims to be going public. We seem to be heading for post-human companies before we’ve figured out who’s managing the humans.

Maybe we should court martial everyone. What a difference a week makes.

 

Five Takeaways



•       No Good Guys: Keith Teare’s editorial puts Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, and Pete Hegseth in the same room—and finds all three guilty of bad leadership. Amodei is ideologically driven, Altman is commercially driven, and Hegseth is just doing his job. None of them is asking the big questions about AI policy. The real culprit may be the invisible AI czar, David Sacks.

•       Altman Said One Thing, Then Did Another: Last week Altman publicly supported Amodei’s position on surveillance and autonomous weapons. This week he signed a contract with the Department of War. The contract uses “no unlawful use” language—which, as Amodei’s leaked memo points out, effectively means there is no law.

•       The US Used Claude in Iran Anyway: Despite the very public dispute between Anthropic and the government, the US military used Claude in the Iran operation. The government doesn’t need your permission to use your product. It just needs an API key and a credit card.

•       China Has a Plan. America Has Theater: Om Malik’s “Post of the Week” contrasts China’s published five-year AI strategy—built on open-source software and bottom-up adoption—with America’s complete absence of AI policy. The Chinese approach is more inclusive

No AI Good Guys? Andrew & Keith Ask If Altman Amodei, & Hegseth Have All Failed the Leadership Test

“All my life, I’ve absolutely opposed all terrorism by anyone under any circumstances. I define terrorism as the deliberate killing of noncombatants.” — Daniel Ellsberg, October 2001



Last week we had Tom Wells on the show talking about Henry Kissinger’s moral indifference to the loss of innocent lives in the Vietnam war. Henry Kissinger, of course, was no fan of the Pentagon Papers— the leaked documents that showed the American government was lying about Vietnam, thereby changing public opinion about the war and helping end it. And the Pentagon Papers are forever associated with one brave man: Daniel Ellsberg, Harvard economist, RAND Corporation strategist, marine, Pentagon insider—and America’s most famous whistleblower.

Ellsberg died in 2023 at the age of 92. Now his son Michael Ellsberg [https://www.ellsberg.net/] has co-edited a posthumous collection of his father’s previously unpublished writing. Truth and Consequence: Reflections on Catastrophe, Civil Resistance, and Hope [https://www.amazon.com/Truth-Consequence-Collected-Daniel-Ellsberg/dp/1639735518] draws from a hundred boxes of handwritten notebooks in nearly illegible script, spanning fifty years of moral reckoning. Daniel Ellsberg didn’t much care about publishing these notes. His son thought otherwise.

What emerges is not another memoir of the Pentagon Papers but a book of ideas—about the nature of evil, the morality of obedience, and what Ellsberg called “civic courage”: taking nonviolent risks when your democracy is in danger. He was inspired not by intellectuals but by young draft resisters going to jail. Daniel Ellsberg’s moral lineage ran from Thoreau through Gandhi to Martin Luther King. And his moral absolute was uncompromising: the deliberate killing of civilians is “terrorism”, whoever orders it. By that definition, Daniel Ellsberg defined Harry Truman as a terrorist. Not to mention morally indifferent politicians like Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger.

Michael Ellsberg is candid about growing up in Berkeley with a father who was loving but distracted—a free-range parent who spent his evenings filling yellow legal pads rather than playing baseball. He’s equally candid about what his father would be saying right now: that whatever rationale exists for the Iran war, there are official plans and reasoning that the American public should know about but doesn’t. The Pentagon Papers proved the government lied. The question, as American bombs once again rain down on innocent civilians, is whether anything has changed in the last sixty years since “terrorists” like Henry Kissinger lied to the American public about Vietnam.

 

Five Takeaways



•       You Are Being Lied to More Than You Realise: That was Ellsberg’s message in 1971, and his son says it’s his message now. Whatever rationale Trump has for the Iran war, Michael Ellsberg argues, there are plans and reasoning the public should know about but doesn’t. The Pentagon Papers proved the government lied about Vietnam. The question is whether anything has changed.

•       The Establishment Man Who Became a Traitor: Daniel Ellsberg was Harvard-educated, a RAND Corporation strategist, a marine, a Pentagon aide working under McNamara. He was not a hippie. He was a silent-generation insider who watched the system lie about a war everyone inside knew was hopeless—and decided the public had a right to know.

•       All Deliberate Killing of Civilians Is Terrorism: In an essay written in October 2001, Ellsberg proposed a moral absolute: the deliberate killing of noncombatants is terrorism, whoever does it—left or right, aggressor or defender, first world or third. By that definition, Hiroshima was terrorism and Truman was a terrorist. No lesser-evil exceptions.

•       Civic Courage Is as Important as Military Courage

What Would Daniel Ellsberg Say About Iran? His Son Michael on America’s Most Famous Whistleblower

The daily show about the big ideas, new technologies, books and people changing the world. Hosted by Andrew Keen.

Keen On