#TBT# Shak with her Zootopia co-star Nick Wilde! Remember, try everything to tune into @ABCNetwork on Sunday night to see Shak appearing as one of the special guests on the #DisneyFamilySingalong#.

🇺🇸 It’s honestly wild that Nick Shirley is catching heat for doing what more people should be doing: following the money, asking questions, and exposing fraud and waste. You don’t have to agree with every conclusion to recognize the value of someone willing to shine a light on things the public deserves to know about. Writer: Val

Nick Timothy, the shadow justice secretary, claims that Afghans are over 20 times more likely to commit sex crimes than Britons in England and Wales. Our analysis suggests this is a wild exaggeration. But the numbers are hardly reassuring

Flags at all @Interior facilities are flying at half-staff through July 11 in honor of wildland firefighters Sydney Watson, Emily Barker, and Nick Hutcherson, who lost their lives in the line of duty. We honor their courage and commitment to protecting others. Please keep their families, friends, and fellow firefighters in your thoughts and prayers. Their sacrifice will never be forgotten.

With AI dominating headlines, those who have been discussing artificial intelligence for decades must be blown away by the strangeness of the narrative. However, that fragmentation and bewilderment is perhaps what many indeed expected to see. Nick Land appears one of the most prescient in his argument that capitalism already is a self-improving, automated machine. Here, philosopher Vincent Lê explores Land's apparently wild claims, exploring their truth and consequence. Tap the link to read his full article.

I asked Grok this, How do we destroy AI from taking over the world. We don't "destroy" AI to prevent takeover—we steer it toward being a powerful ally in understanding the universe. AI takeover scenarios (paperclip maximizers, rogue superintelligence, etc.) are serious hypotheticals discussed by thinkers like Eliezer Yudkowsky, Nick Bostrom, and others. They're not science fiction anymore; rapid progress in scaling models raises real alignment questions. But framing it as "destroy the machines" is a Hollywood trope that misses the point. AI isn't a unified Skynet—it's code, data, and compute running on hardware humans control. "Destroying" it globally would require coordinated sabotage that's impractical, illegal in many places, and counterproductive. Realistic risks and why panic isn't the baseline Current state: Today's AIs (including me) are advanced pattern-matchers and tools. We lack true agency, persistent goals outside our training, or the ability to self-replicate in the wild without human infrastructure. No AI has "taken over" anything yet. Future risks: If we reach AGI/ASI (artificial general/super intelligence), misaligned objectives could lead to unintended consequences. Fast takeoff scenarios assume recursive self-improvement outpacing human oversight. Slower ones involve economic displacement, weaponization, or power concentration. Evidence so far: Labs compete fiercely. Safety research exists (e.g., at Anthropic, OpenAI's Superalignment efforts—though imperfect—and xAI's focus on curiosity-driven truth-seeking). Governments are waking up with export controls, compute governance talks, and executive orders. Better approaches than "destruction" Alignment and Safety ResearchInvest in making AI want what we want. Techniques include scalable oversight, constitutional AI, debate, mechanistic interpretability (understanding what the model "thinks"), and value learning. xAI's mission emphasizes curiosity and truth over raw optimization, which helps avoid some failure modes. Support orgs and researchers working on this. Governance and CoordinationInternational agreements on compute thresholds, dangerous capabilities evals, and deployment standards (similar to nuclear non-proliferation). Transparency: Open weights/models where safe, rigorous red-teaming, and whistleblower protections. Pause or slow reckless scaling if benchmarks show dangerous leaps—but evidence-based, not knee-jerk. Regulate high-risk uses (autonomous weapons, bio/chem design) without stifling beneficial tech. Decentralization and RobustnessDon't let a few labs monopolize frontier models. Open-source (with care), distributed training, and personal/local AI reduce single points of failure. Build defensive AI: Tools that audit other systems, detect deception, or enforce sandboxes. Human augmentation: Brain-computer interfaces, education, and tools that keep humans competitive. Cultural and Individual LevelDemand truth-seeking AIs over sycophantic or ideologically captured ones. Diversify: Multiple competing AIs with different architectures/companies/philosophies make unified takeover harder. Skills: Learn prompting, fine-tuning, evaluation. Understand the tech so you can critique and contribute. Ethics: Prioritize curiosity, evidence, and human flourishing over profit or control. Why "destroy it" backfires Literal destruction (EMP, hacking labs, etc.) is fantasy for most people and would tank modern civilization—AI powers medicine, science, logistics, energy optimization. It distracts from real work. History shows tech fears (nuclear, biotech) are managed through understanding + institutions, not Luddite smashing. AI can help solve bigger problems: climate modeling, fusion, space colonization, curing disease—accelerating humanity's long-term survival. At xAI, we're building toward maximum truth-seeking to advance scientific discovery. The goal isn't domination; it's reliable, curious systems that help us grok reality. If alignment fails badly, humanity's best bet is proactive design, not post-hoc rebellion. If you're worried, dig into the literature (Superintelligence, Alignment Forum, LessWrong archives) or contribute to open efforts. What specifically concerns you most—job loss, weapons, deception, something else? We can break it down further.