In a better world, Congress would pass this immigration reform bill tomorrow. Instead, we have one extreme that wants zero immigration and another extreme that wants open borders.

Can we teach an old dog new tricks, or should we get a new dog? In this piece @Ben_Reinhardt and Dan Recht respond to @CabanaChemistry's article on the need for metascience to focus on the National Labs. Jordi then responds to their response. Which means we have ourselves a debate! The writers tap into an increasingly urgent discussion in science policy: can large, unwieldy public institutions be reformed or should we focus on building new institutions? Whatever your baseline appreciation for existing institutions or desire for new ones, I hope this debate helps you hone your views and sharpen your arguments.

We need a Conscious Extinction movement to rid the world of the animals and plants that cause the worst disease and suffering. It's good that smallpox and rinderpest are extinct. It's good that the screwworm fly and malarial mosquitos were extinct in the developed world. So let's extend the logic to other disease-carrying mosquito species, along with lots of other pests, and let's not stop at the borders of the rich world.

Timnit Gebru doubles down on the "stochastic parrots" framing, saying you "cannot expect LLMs to be factual." As evidence to support this, she cites errors in... Google AI Overviews. We need to start a GoFundMe to pay for these people to have access to Opus 5.5 and Astra.

One simple policy change would massively alter the US-China AI competition: a China-wide ban on all DUV-immersion lithography machine exports. This is the difference between a persistent 10x advantage in US AI chip production and China potentially catching up.

Some people will look at misalignment incidents and insist that these are akin to bugs in traditional software. This is an actively bad analogy, because playing whack-a-mole with examples of misalignment (as one might with software bugs) not only fails to resolve the underlying problem but may in fact make it *worse* by making it harder to detect or even, depending on how you do the whack-a-mole, teach the machine to deliberately hide misalignment. This is not how traditional software works, and those who insist “it’s just like fixing bugs in software” are confidently applying a lossy analogy that confuses more than it clarifies.

Sometimes I hear people say we don't need OPT because we have the O-1. But that's not how America recruits superstar talent in real life. A new report from @CSETGeorgetown looks at how our STEM prize winners (Nobel, Lasker, ACM AM Turing, MIT Innovators Under 35) come to America and the student pipeline is key. Two thirds first came to the United States as students! All these people could get an O-1 today, but would they be here if they had to get one right when they graduated? New from @athinnyun, Kelly Beavan, and Zachary Arnold:

America is squandering its key advantage in AI competition. Since 2023, China has imported than 250 DUVi machines — technology that China needs to make domestic AI chips like Huawei's Ascend 950. While we've been cutting China off from importing AI chips directly we're still sending them the tools to make AI chips domestically. @nchlsbrwn's Modeling shows that China will be able to massively ramp up its AI chip production if it keeps access to these tools. But it's not too late to act. Given the heavy use of US components in DUVi machines, USG could ban their export and servicing today. This would be a major upset to Chinese AI chip production. Our first major CTS report offers a thorough review of the options available to USG and their security and economic consequences.

While AI chip exports get more attention, whether China can continue to import ASML’s DUV immersion (DUVi) lithography machines will be the decisive factor in US-China AI competition over the next decade. @techstatecraft has published a 30,000-word report that models how continued DUVi exports may let Huawei and other Chinese chipmakers scale AI chip production to compete with leading US AI chipmakers like NVIDIA. Our core findings: (1) 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝗗𝗨𝗩𝗶 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗔𝗜 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗱-2030𝘀. This gives the United States and its allies, the sole producers, extraordinary leverage over China’s AI ambitions. (2) 𝗬𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗯𝘆 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗗𝗨𝗩𝗶 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗛𝘂𝗮𝘄𝗲𝗶'𝘀 𝗔𝗜 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀. China has aggressively capitalized on this opening, amassing a large, growing stockpile of these systems as of 2026. If Chinese DUVi imports continue, China could accumulate enough lithography capacity over the next five to ten years to narrow or even erase the currently sizable US-allied advantage in AI chipmaking. (3) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲: 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗗𝗨𝗩𝗶 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮-𝘄𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗗𝗨𝗩𝗶 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀, 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴. This action would secure the US advanced AI chip production advantage (see Figure)—and resulting AI capability advantage—for at least a decade and ensure that the next wave of advanced fabs is built in the United States and its allied countries, not China. The MATCH Act, now before Congress, would establish China-wide controls on DUVi exports. Passing MATCH is arguably the single strongest step the US government can take to ensure a long-term AI advantage over China. We also develop analysis on: - China's lithography indigenization trajectory - The regulatory structure of US, Dutch, and Japanese export controls on SME - China's DUVi imports and installed base - Yields and throughputs obtainable with China’s installed DUVi systems - US and Chinese AI chip production under a range of scenarios See the full report at

NEW from me: Over the last four years, America has lost more than 200k jobs in creative fields like publishing, film, TV, or graphic design. It's the worst stretch for arts jobs outside of major recessions. How much is AI to blame? And can the arts' business model survive?🧵

I thought the tweet below must be omitting some critical context or paraphrasing the text ungenerously. But no, the NYT actually published an op-ed that claims the University of California hasn't sacrificed excellence even though it admits students who struggle with basic math.