CORN: Trump, Billionaires, and AI is Recipe for Disaster…

I’m writing this while on a flight from Washington, DC, to the Bay Area, which is rather appropriate for I have recently realized that there’s yet one more reason to fear a second Trump presidency: artificial intelligence.

One does not have to be a techno-doomer to be concerned that AI will have a dramatic impact on our world and, yes, possibly become a threat. It’s another source of power—and one that could conceivably become a power of its own. The crucial question is, who controls AI and its use? Can it be safely developed and implemented? It seems there ought to be rules. But who will write them and who will enforce them?

The recent reports from Silicon Valley have not been encouraging. This month, a group of past and current employees at OpenAI, one of the leading outfits in this field and the creator of ChatGPT, issued a warning: The firm is putting profits ahead of safety and rushing the development of products that may be dangerous, as it seeks to build artificial general intelligence, a.k.a. AGI—a program that can do anything a person can. You might recall OpenAI was in the news a few months ago when its board surprisingly dumped CEO Sam Altman amid concerns about his stewardship of the company, which originally was founded to lead the way in the responsible and prudent pursuit of AI technology. It apparently veered off that course. Yet Altman ultimately was reinstated, a signal the company would move full speed ahead. (OpenAI also generated headlines when actress Scarlett Johansson accused it of stealing her voice for one of its AI products.)

William Saunders, a research engineer who left OpenAI in February and joined in that warning, told the New York Times, “When I signed up for OpenAI, I did not sign up for this attitude of ‘Let’s put things out into the world and see what happens and fix them afterward.’” Daniel Kokotajlo, a former OpenAI researcher who helped organize these critics, told the newspaper that the company is “recklessly racing” ahead, that he believes there’s a 50 percent chance AGI will arrive by 2027, and a 70 percent probability advanced AI will annihilate or catastrophically affect humanity.

Other experts aren’t as gloomy as Kokotajlo. But…yikes.

There have been plenty of reports in the past year or two of Big Tech companies, including Google and Microsoft, too quickly releasing AI products and not heeding the cautions of safety-minded personnel. No surprise, since AI is the new gold rush, and these firms don’t want to be left behind. The Silicon Valley ethos has tended to be get there first and worry about problems later. That thinking regarding AI is exponentially more dangerous than, say, with a ride-share app.

The introduction of AI into our world has accelerated. In recent weeks, Facebook, Apple, and Google have injected it into its products. OpenAI introduced a new and more powerful version of its chatbot and forged partnerships with a number of media organizations. As the Atlantic’s Charlie Warzel put it,

Technology companies…are racing to capture money and market share before their competitors do and making unforced errors as a result. But though tech corporations may have built the hype train, others are happy to ride it. Leaders in all industries, terrified of missing out on the next big thing, are signing checks and inking deals, perhaps not knowing what precisely it is they’re getting into or if they are unwittingly helping the companies who will ultimately destroy them. The Washington Post’s chief technology officer, Vineet Khosla, has reportedly told staff that the company intends to “have A.I. everywhere” inside the newsroom, even if its value to journalism remains, in my eyes, unproven and ornamental. We are watching as the plane is haphazardly assembled in midair.

And there’s no FAA looking over this. The people driving the hype train or piloting the being-assembled-in-midair plane are the Big Tech billionaires and their minions. Clearly, they do not have the public interest—or public safety—foremost in mind.

That’s why it was unnerving to see Donald Trump trek to San Francisco earlier this month to bag $12 million at a fundraiser for tech execs organized by venture capitalists David Sacks and Chamath Palihapitiya. Palihapitiya has previously raised money for both Democrats and Republicans (including Ted Cruz and Vivek Ramaswamy). In recent years, he has supported immigration reform and the expansion of low-income housing and has expressed his regret for helping Facebook become a behemoth, noting, “The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works: no civil discourse, no collaboration, misinformation, mistruth and it’s not an American problem.” Yet he now finds Trump, the candidate of disinformation and divisive discourse, acceptable?

Sacks is a pal of billionaire Peter Thiel, and though he donated $70,000 to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, he has since become a prominent booster of Republicans, including J.D. Vance and Ron DeSantis. He’s been a loud opponent of US miliary assistance to Ukraine, claiming it will lead to “Woke War III” and has actively amplified right-wing conspiracy theories on social media.

Another attendee at the event was Eoghan McCabe, the chief executive of Intercom, a messaging company. In 2017, he and his firm decried Trump’s proposed Muslim ban. Under the headline “Supporting our Muslim sisters and brothers in tech,” he wrote, “We feel compelled as humans to see if we can try to ease the new suffering of some, by even a small amount.” His company offered to pay the legal fees for Muslim tech workers who wanted to relocate to Dublin, Ireland. The point was to send a “message” to the Trump administration. Six years later, he got into hot water within his own firm when he halted its support for Pride celebrations. He now crows that he and the other tech execs are backing Trump “for his policies on war, immigration, crypto, and more,” calling this election “a referendum on those issues.” That’s quite a journey.

In general, the SV crowd does not want pesky government oversight. Especially on cryptocurrency. And they want AI decision-making to be in their own hands. Let the disruptors and innovators rule! And how much interest do you think Trump has in regulating AI?

There’s a question whether Congress and the federal government are up to the task of protecting us from the possible dangers of AI. The technology is expanding at an intense pace—a speed far beyond what our government is usually capable of handling. We’ve seen members of Congress during hearings with tech executives display plenty of ignorance. There are, however, tech-ish legislators on both sides of the aisle who have been gathering and pondering what to do about AI, and President Joe Biden in October signed an extensive 111-page executive order on AI that sought to establish standards and guidelines for its development. But none of this is keeping up with the challenge, which could be an existential one.

Obviously, Trump would be no improvement. He would be worse. Look at his approach to climate change and energy. In April, he met with energy company executives and lobbyists at his Mar-a-Lago club and tried to cut a deal. They should donate $1 billion to his campaign, he said, because he would cut environmental safeguards that govern their industry. This was cynical transactionalism. Screw the world, gimme money.

Trump’s approach to AI is unlikely to be any different. A bunch of tech billionaires just handed him a bundle of campaign loot. For Trump, that’s love. And more may be coming. He’s not going to take them on. Moreover, a guy who doesn’t understand how magnets or electric boats work is not able to sort through the tough issues of artificial intelligence. Trump would be a dream president for the tech robber barons who desire free rein to do whatever they want with AI.

On a podcast after his fundraising trip to San Francisco, Trump was asked about AI. He gave a rambling answer in which he dwelled on the fact that he had pocketed $12 million from the tech executives and marveled at the accuracy of deepfakes. His bottom line on AI: “As long as it’s there, let’s see how it works out.” How reassuring.

In the tech world, a complete AI apocalypse—one that eradicates our civilization or species—is called “p(doom).” Whose job is it to prevent that? Not the tech bros and gals. They are galloping ahead, playing dice with our universe to make bank. The rest of us, through our elected representatives, ought to have a say in this—especially as the conscientious AI researchers are being ignored and forced out by Big AI. Unless there soon is a paradigm shift within that world—a disruption—we will be at the mercy of the Big Tech barons. And then, if they screw it up, perhaps at the mercy of AI itself. Whatever the theoretical possibility of such a calamity, one thing’s for sure: Trump in the White House increases the odds.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at [email protected].

I know, I can be a pest. But here’s yet another nudge about the upcoming Zoom gathering of Our Land subscribers on June 19 at 8 p.m. ET. Remember, only premium subscribers to Our Land can attend. But here’s the good news: There’s still time to sign up—which also will bring you the full version of the Our Land newsletter featuring more insider reports on politics and on the media, reviews of movies, television shows, books, and music, the Dumbass Comment of the Week, access to the interactive Mailbag, and, best of all, MoxieCam™. As I always say, what’s most important is that if you become a premium subscriber, you’ll be supporting Our Land. Without premium subscribers, Our Land would not exist. So there are lots of reasons to go premium: to be part of our Zoom shindig, to receive all the quality content we churn out, and to help us keep the lights on. Please consider enlisting as a premium OurLander.

To make life a bit easier while I am on the road, I’ll be skipping the next issue. See you in a week.

Veteran journalist Howard Fineman was a dear friend of mine. He passed away this past week. He was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer two summers ago and handed a tough prognosis: He had merely months to live. But like the master writer he was, he made much of the thin material and spent nearly two years traveling, spending time with friends and family, and occasionally writing cogent pieces about our tumultuous politics. Most of his stunning career transpired at Newsweek, when it was a titan of journalism. He then helped steer HuffPost to its heights, mentoring a band of young journalists there. You might have known him from his numerous appearances as a television pundit who offered soundbites based on immense foundations of knowledge developed over years of reporting on politics. You can read the New York Times obit to get the basics.

Over a year ago, when his circumstances appeared especially dire, his wife, Amy Nathan, asked Howard’s friends to write him letters of appreciation. I was honored to do so, even though Howard told me he would not be reading these notes. Perhaps he did so later or in the last few weeks. Rather than concoct a eulogy now, I’d like to share that letter.

Dear Howard,

I am writing to let you know that I have greatly treasured our friendship and the bond we have forged over the past decades, as we have covered history in the making and pursued truth for its own sake and for the betterment of the world. You’ve been a wonderful compatriot on this journey and a person from whom I learned much and whose support I’ve always valued.

If my memory is on target, we first became acquainted when I was an occasional guest on CNN’s Capital Gang, the Sunday night edition, in the early or mid-1990s. At first, I found you a bit intimidating. Then again, I was the pisher who was writing at The Nation, a small (but important!) publication, where my work was only read by our devoted subscribers, while you were a—perhaps the—preeminent political journalist, who wrote perceptively and elegantly for Newsweek, a towering institution. And I was put off by your constant certainty about…well, everything. What a know-it-all, I thought. But then I realized this: You did know it all. Or most of it. Watching you, I learned that to do this job well—to be reporters who are handed a platform to share our observations and analyses—we had to be authoritative. Even in 30-second-long soundbites. And the best way to do that was to be prepared to deliver a TED talk—though there were no TED talks back then. You showed me that in order to be brilliant in half-a-minute you had to know enough to wax on intelligently for an hour. To this day, I still over-prepare for every hit I do. Thank you for that.

Whether in the green room for Hardball, at a presidential campaign town hall meeting in New Hampshire, or on the crowded convention floor at a party’s nominating shindig, it was always a treat to share the moment with you. Your wry remarks and on-the-money commentary were much appreciated and often helped me form my own view on whatever perplexing or infuriating matter was before us. You were good company.

In later years, I sensed that we shared something else: the desire to help younger journalists find their paths, hone their instincts, and develop their talents. That’s always been important to me, and I enjoyed watching you do the same with the young ’uns of HuffPo. The world needs more journalists who are guided by righteous values and who deploy their skills to tell the stories that most need telling. It was a delight to visit your class at U-Penn and see you pursuing this objective. I often think this is our most significant task—more important than any one cover story, scoop, or book. It’s our deepest legacy, and I know there are many fine journalists whose work is better—who have brought to light important truths—because they were able to work with you.

By now you might be thinking that I am laying it on thick because of your condition. In a way, that is correct. But what’s thick can also be true. In our busy day-to-day lives, we often forget to show our appreciation for others and to tell them what they mean to us. You and I have been kindred spirits and colleagues in the best sense of that word, and I was greatly moved by the interest and support you showed for my recent book project. You forwarded me articles that you thought were relevant. When I saw you at the Takoma Park porch concert, you shared ideas for the book. It meant much that you had been thinking of me and this book-under-construction. 

So, of course, I am going to take this opportunity caused by grim circumstances to pile on the compliments and heap on the praise. We all know that when the camera is on, we must make the best use of the time we have been given. From where I sit, you’ve been doing that for years and years—in print, on television (cable and broadcast!), online, and, most important, in life. Thanks so much for including me in the Howard Fineman Show. It’s been a pleasure, an honor, and an education to share the stage—or the set—with you.

I hope to see you soon.

Your pal,
David

The judges were distracted this week by funny animal videos on social media. But they did manage to vet a few prize nominations. Sophia Hutchins, a surrogate speaker for the Trump presidential campaign, had a strong showing with her observations about Black people:

Just because you’re Black, you’re not a DEI hire or [long pause] you don’t bring value, but a lot of these people, you can see, they’re not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

This woman is also Caitlyn Jenner’s manager, a socialite, and a Log Cabin Republicans board member. Apparently, in the Trump era, even what passes for a progressive-ish GOPer feels free to spout racist crap.

Ahead of Trump’s visit this week to Capitol Hill to chat with Republican legislators, a reporter asked House Speaker Mike Johnson this question: Trump is coming to the Capitol “for the first time…since the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol…have you spoken to him about basically not doing anything like that again and committing to respecting the American tradition of peaceful transfer of power?”

Johnson’s answer: “Of course, he respects that, and we all do, and we’ve all talked about it ad nauseum.”

With his vow to pardon the violent insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol, Trump has hardly shown a respect for or a commitment to the peaceful transfer of power. Johnson is just too chicken-s**t to say that.

The winner this week is not a political player but a news organization. In a tweet about that Trump visit to Capitol Hill, the Associated Press declared:

Donald Trump made a triumphant return to Capitol Hill on Thursday, his first with lawmakers since the Jan. 6, 2021 attacks, embraced by energized House and Senate Republicans who find themselves reinvigorated by his bid to retake the White House.

Has an intern from North Korea taken over the AP’s social media accounts? If so, AP can send us their mailing address, and we will ship this person this week’s trophy.

The mailroom staff this week was preoccupied fixing the Our Land pneumatic tube system that, yet again, broke down. (They always jam!) But they did manage to pass along two comments about a recent issue. In response to the edition that examined whether Donald Trump Jr. was right to whine that Democrats play politics tougher than Republicans (he wasn’t), Rich Fairbanks observed:

Your piece about who is meaner—Dems or Repubs—was thoughtful and well written as always. It certainly struck a chord with me. I have been a forester here in the northwest for a few decades, and I have watched things evolve among rural conservatives. They are getting meaner. They were always pretty nasty, but nowadays they think they have a cause, a leader. I keep waiting to hear Democrats acknowledge that these conservatives are people who would embrace fascism given the chance. All I hear from Democratic leadership and the Democratic commentariat (yourself excepted) is that the situation “frightens” them, that the vitriol from the right is “terrifying.”

The leaders of the left should let the fascism-curious know that many of us lefties are not terrified; we are enraged. Many of us are not frightened, but we are thinking about retribution. We are watching our democracy slip away because some creepy billionaires don’t want to pay their taxes. Perhaps the whole thing can be resolved at the ballot box. I certainly would welcome that outcome. But until that happens, I would welcome some anger on the left.

I would not count myself as part of the Democratic commentariat, but as I’ve recently written, I do believe Biden and the Dems need to show more fight. However, reader Clay Fink took issue with my observation that “it sure took a long time before Biden began decrying Trump as a threat to democracy.” He emailed:

If you think back, Biden ran on this in 2020. From the start he framed his campaign as a fight for preserving democracy, even citing the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally as one of his reasons for running. And he seems to be hitting Trump in speeches when it’s appropriate. And when it’s not, like at the D-Day commemoration, it wasn’t hard to read between the lines and get the same message. Yeah, Dems tend to take knives to gunfights (see Sen. Dick Durbin and most of our Democratic senators), but POTUS seems to be on the job, just not in the same register as the nutters in Cult 45.

Acknowledged, Biden is trying. I believe he could be doing more himself and, perhaps more important, egging on other Democrats (including his vice president) to more fiercely thump Trump and his right-wing extremist allies.

“One more throw, then I have to take you to the sitter.”
“You’re leaving me behind, again?”
“Just for a few days, Moxie.”
“You know I can’t keep track of time. It will feel like an infinity.”
“Or maybe a nanosecond?”
“It’s all the same to me.”

June 11, 2024: The most under-covered issue of the 2024 election (Trump’s ties to right-wing extremism); the monster theme in Godzilla Minus One; the secrets of J.M. Coetzee’s The Pole; and more.

June 8, 2024: Is Donald Trump Jr. right that Republicans are weenies?; more on Trump’s love affair with revenge; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Sen. Tommy Tuberville); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. 

June 4, 2024: The Trump-Russia denialists are back; revenge of the Trump; a frustrating Civil War; the unending extraordinariness of Richard Thompson; and more.

June 1, 2024: Trump loses a big battle in his war on accountability; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

May 25, 2024: Trump’s dangerous grifting; Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s crazier than you might think; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Jared Perdue); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

May 21, 2024: Why do they believe Trump?; the meaning of Trump’s bad makeup; lesson from a mass shooter’s mother; the beautiful noir of Ripley; and more.

May 18, 2024: Here come the Russians, again; Sonya Cohen Cramer’s You’ve Been a Friend to Me; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Eric Trump); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

May 14, 2024: Paul Manafort and the metrics of shamelessness; 3 Body Problem’s obvious but understated tie to climate change; Neil Young and Crazy Horse keep a promise; and more.

May 11, 2024: America is broken, and the media ain’t helping; my fascinating trip to Japan; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Laura Ingraham); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

May 7, 2024: Modern-day lessons from Hiroshima; Ed Zwick’s Hits, Flops, and Other Illusions; the virtues of Tokyo Vice; and more.