📢Ticket lottery applications are now open!!!🤩 THE ARGUMENT -Beginning to see the light- 🗓️Date: 2026/10/25 (Sun) 📍Venue: Spotify O-EAST/O-WEST （Tokyo） 🎟️eplus #theargument#

The fact of the matter is that more people dislike than like @reformparty_uk At this stage in the electoral cycle they should be on 40% + with the amount of dislike the public have for the uniparty. They should be forming a big coalition on the right instead of these petty personal disputes. Vote for me tomorrow is Clacton to send them a message that they aren’t the anointed ones, they need to work with others and be conveners on the common sense, patriotic side of the argument, instead of behaving like entitled children. Big tent. Everyone welcome. 🙏 That’s the only way out of this mess.

The AI Singularity The argument goes like this: 1. Humans build an AGI. 2. The AGI becomes good at AI research. 3. It designs a smarter AI. 4. That smarter AI designs an even smarter AI. 5. The cycle repeats faster and faster. Looking at the results and capabilities from the various labs over the past few weeks I would say we are firmly in this loop now. The next 18months will be wild. Recursive self improvement will dramatically increase capability very quickly from here. Marginal costs of all models will go to ~$0.

The GREAT MARC ANDREESSEN @pmarca SPENT THREE AND A HALF HOURS WITH @joerogan . I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT EVER SINCE. I'm a cardiologist. I've spent twenty-five years at UCLA and in my own practice in Tarzana. So when one of the most influential technologists alive starts talking about medicine, I listen carefully — and I push back where I think he's wrong. Here's my honest verdict: he's right about far more than my profession is ready to admit. 1. He says AGI already arrived — and nobody noticed. Marc's claim is that the line was crossed roughly three months before the interview, with the current frontier models, and the field is now moving so fast that nobody stops to register milestones anymore. Think about that. The thing humanity has argued about for seventy years may have quietly happened on a Tuesday, and we were all busy checking email. 2. The models now beat the experts he could call on the phone. This is a man who can call almost anyone on earth. He says the AI gives him better answers. My first instinct was to bristle — twenty-five years of training, and a machine does it better? Then I sat with it honestly. He isn't wrong. Though I'll add what he didn't: independent studies of AI health tools have found real misses on true emergencies. Take the claim seriously and verify it yourself. 3. The hardest thing he said, and he said it about doctors. He points out that physicians are already typing your symptoms into ChatGPT the moment you stop talking, and then asks out loud: what do I need you for? That question stung. It also deserves an answer instead of a defense. He's right that the machine will out-read me on the EKG, the echo, the labs, the scan. It doesn't get tired at 2am. It doesn't forget the rare diagnosis it saw once in residency. Any physician whose ego prevents him from using a better tool is a physician putting pride ahead of patients. 4. His method for hard subjects: escalating simplicity. Explain it like I'm 10. Then like I'm 5. Then like I'm 2. Keep going until it truly clicks. I've started doing this and it has changed how I read papers outside my specialty. 5. He doesn't ask for the right answer. He asks the AI to steelman both sides of a hard question — the strongest possible case for each — and then he decides himself. That's not outsourcing your thinking. That's the opposite. 6. He convenes a panel. For the big questions, he has the AI role-play a room full of experts arguing with each other, and he listens to the argument. Imagine having that available for the biggest decision of your life. 7. His most important line has nothing to do with computers. The moment you think "I don't know how to figure this out" is exactly when most people quit — and exactly when you should lean in instead. Read that again. That's not a technology lesson. That's a life lesson, and it applies whether you're facing a diagnosis, a divorce, or a business that's failing. 8. The only skill left is knowing what to ask. The bottleneck is no longer the machine. It's in your own head. The quality of your life is now, more than ever, downstream of the quality of your questions. 9. He sends it photographs. Rashes, blood tests, images — the current models read pictures directly and give a fast second opinion. As a physician I'll say clearly: a second opinion, not a substitute for one. But the day a worried parent at midnight has something intelligent to consult is a good day for humanity. 10. Free therapy, for everyone, forever. This is the one that moved me most. He points to cognitive behavioral therapy as the clinically proven modality an AI can plausibly deliver on its own — meaning real therapeutic support becomes freely available at scale. Think about what that means. The man lying awake at 3am with nobody to call. The single mother who can't afford a therapist. The teenager who can't yet say the words out loud to a human face. For all of human history, healing was rationed by geography, wealth, and luck. That is ending in our lifetime. 11. It's solving problems we couldn't. He cites AI cracking previously unsolved math problems, with early signals of the same beginning in physics, chemistry, and biology. Cardiology is downstream of biology. Every drug I prescribe came out of that pipeline. 12. The top AI engineers are earning up to $50 million a year. He offers this less as gossip than as a signal — that's what a civilizational shift looks like from the inside. 13. A friend built his own health dashboard. Sequenced his DNA, handed it to an AI along with his blood work and wearable data, and got back a working picture of his own body. That is precision medicine arriving through the side door, years ahead of schedule. 14. Another friend put cameras in his jiu-jitsu gym. So the AI could review his sparring and coach his technique. Elite coaching, for anything, for anyone. 15. The warning he gave — "the AI vampire." This is the term he coined, and as a physician it's the one I want you to hear. Because AI keeps making more output possible, people are working more and sleeping less, addicted to their own productivity. Let me be blunt with you as a heart doctor. Chronic sleep deprivation raises blood pressure, drives inflammation, disrupts your rhythm, and shortens your life. Marc named the disease before most physicians did. Do not let a machine that never sleeps convince you that you don't have to either. 16. One person, many agents. His extrapolation: a single human eventually directing a fleet of AI agents that check each other's work. He describes this as close. Not years away. 17. And his own caveat, which I'll repeat. Watch the whole interview. Several of these are Marc's stated views and personal anecdotes, not independently verified facts. He'd be the first to tell you to think for yourself — that's the entire point of #5#. So here's where I land, as a doctor who has sat with thousands of frightened people. Marc is right that the diagnosis is no longer the hard part. What remains — what will always remain — is the chair pulled close, the hand held, the human being who says I'm not going anywhere, we'll walk through this together. But that was never in competition with the machine. The machine frees me to do more of it. Marc calls himself a techno-optimist. From inside an exam room, watching patients whose lives are about to get measurably longer and better because of this — I'd just call him right. 🙏

The greatest risk posed by AI may not be artificial intelligence itself; it is much more likely to be that we give politicians the power to decide who is allowed to build it, use it and benefit from it. That's the argument Marc Andreessen makes in The Techno-Optimist Manifesto - and history gives us good reason to take it seriously. Andreessen argues that technology is the primary driver of human progress and that AI represents one of the most important advances in history. Rather than treating it as an existential threat that requires state control, he sees it as a powerful tool that will expand human capability, raise living standards and solve problems that currently seem intractable. The case for heavy regulation usually rests on two claims: that AI is uniquely dangerous, and that governments are capable of guiding its development responsibly. Both are questionable. Past technologies - from electricity and automobiles to the internet and biotechnology - were also accompanied by dire warnings and calls for strict oversight. In most cases, premature regulation would have slowed or distorted progress without meaningfully reducing risk. Governments face the same knowledge problem with AI that they face with every complex, fast-moving technology. Regulators lack the information, incentives and agility to make good decisions about what should be allowed, restricted or banned. More often, regulatory systems are captured by incumbents who want to slow down competitors, or by ideological activists who are hostile to technological progress itself. The better approach is to allow innovation to proceed while holding individuals and companies accountable for actual harm under the law. Precautionary regulation based on speculative future risks tends to favour the powerful and the risk-averse at the expense of progress that benefits everyone. Andreessen’s core message is simple: the greatest danger is not that AI will advance too quickly, but that fear and political control will prevent it from advancing at all.

The question isn't whether agents are capable. It's who controls them. Grateful to Business Punk for the invitation to write an op-ed on this. The piece runs in German, but the argument doesn't need translation.

The anti-AI coalition continues to maneuver to find arguments to slow down AI progress. If someone has a sincere concern about a specific effect of AI, for instance that it may lead to human extinction, I respect their intellectual honesty, even if I deeply disagree with their position. However, I am concerned about organizations that are surveying the public to find whatever messages will turn people against AI, and how the public reacts as these messages are spread by lobbyists or by politicians seeking to alarm constituents, companies pursuing regulatory capture or seeking to promote the power of their technology, and individuals seeking to gain attention or to profit by being provocative. A large study (link in original article below; h/t to the AI Panic blog) by a UK group tested different messages that are designed to raise alarm about AI. Their study found that saying AI will cause human extinction has largely failed. Doomsayers were pushing this argument a couple of years ago, and fortunately our community beat it back. But AI-enabled warfare and environmental concerns resonate better. We should be prepared for a flood of messages (which is already underway) arguing against AI on these grounds. Further, job loss and harm to children are messages that motivate people to act. To be clear, I find AI-enabled warfare alarming; we need to continue serious efforts to monitor and mitigate the environmental impact of AI; any job losses are tragic and hurt individuals and families; and as a father, I hold dearly the importance of every child’s welfare. Each of these topics deserves serious attention and treatment with the greatest of care. But when anti-AI propagandists take a one-sided view of complex issues to benefit their own organizations at the expense of the public at large — for instance, when big AI companies argue that AI is dangerous to block the free distribution of open source projects that compete with their offerings — then we all lose. For example, public perception of data centers’ environmental impact is already far worse than the reality — data centers are incredibly efficient for the work they do, and hampering their buildout will hurt rather than help the environment. While job loss is a real problem, the “AI washing” of layoffs — in which businesses that had over-hired during the pandemic blame AI for recent layoffs, although AI hasn’t yet affected their operations — has led to overblown fears about the impact of AI on employment. Unfortunately, this sort of propaganda easily leads to regulations that create worse outcomes for everyone. For example, oil companies worked for years to create fear of nuclear energy. The result is that overblown concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants has stifled nuclear power development, leading to millions of premature deaths from air pollution that was caused by other energy sources and a massive increase in CO2 emissions. Let’s make sure overblown concerns about AI do not lead to a similar fate for the many people that would benefit from faster AI development. Last week, the White House proposed a national legislative framework for AI. A key component is a federal preemption framework to prevent a patchwork of state regulations that hamper AI development. I support this. After failing to gain traction at the federal level, a lot of anti-AI propaganda has shifted to the state level. If just one of the 50 states passes a law that limits AI in an unproductive way, it could lead to stifling AI development across all the states and potentially across the globe. The White House proposal rightfully respects each state’s rights to control its own zoning, how it enforces general laws to protect consumers, and how it uses AI. But if a state were to pass laws that limit AI development, federal rules would preempt the state law. The White House proposal remains a proposal for now. However, if the U.S. Congress enacts it, it will clear the way for ongoing efforts to develop AI in beneficial ways. Where do we go from here? Let’s support limiting applications — those that use AI, and those that don’t — that harm people. When the anti-AI coalition argues against AI, in addition to considering the merits of the argument, I consider whether their position is consistent and persuasive, or if they are just promoting whatever concerns they think will sway the public at a given moment. And, let’s also keep using a scientific approach to weighing AI’s benefits against likely harms, so we don’t end up with overblown concerns that limit the benefits that AI can bring everyone. [Original text with links: ]

Btw if you think the argument against Chinese models is too weak to ban them internally, in the US, you should check the status of Heath Care and costs for American citizens of things that cost 1/10 elsewhere in the world. They can do it, especially with this administration.