Podcasts about Chilson

Think tanks are a vital part of the policy ecosystem, but what do they do? In this installment of Science Policy IRL, host Jason Lloyd talks to Neil Chilson, head of AI policy at the Abundance Institute. He has been involved in science and technology policy for his whole career, previously practicing telecommunications law and serving as the Federal Trade Commission's chief technologist.In this episode, Chilson discusses what it's like to work at a policy think tank, the questions about artificial intelligence that motivate his work, and why he is optimistic about our technological future. ResourcesCheck out Neil Chilson's book, Getting Out Of Control: Emergent Leadership in a Complex World.Find more of Chilson's work on his website and explore his Substack, including: “Red Teaming AI Legislation: Lessons from SB 1047”: How the concept of “red teaming” can be applied to creating legislation. “10 Years After the Best Tech Policy Movie Ever”: Lessons from The Lego Movie for emergent leadership.Learn more about the Abundance Institute's vision for artificial intelligence policy by reading their recommendations here. 

June 1,2025

May 25,2025

May 18,2025

May 11,2025

In this week's episode of The Dynamist, guest host Jon Askonas is joined by Katherine Boyle, (General Partner at a16z), and Neil Chilson, (AI Policy at the Abundance Institute), to tackle a critical yet often overlooked question: How is technology reshaping the American family? As tech giants like TikTok and Instagram come under scrutiny for their effects on children's mental health, and remote work continues to redefine domestic life, the conversation around technology's role in family dynamics has never been more urgent.Katherine shares insights from her recent keynote at the American Enterprise Institute, highlighting how the core objective of technological innovation, which she calls "American Dynamism," should be empowering the family rather than centralizing state control. Neil provides a fresh perspective on how decentralized systems and emergent technologies can enhance—not hinder—family autonomy and resilience. Amid rising debates about homeschooling, screen time, and the shift toward a remote-first lifestyle, the guests discuss whether tech-driven changes ultimately strengthen or undermine families as society's fundamental institution.Together, they explore the possibility of a new era in which technology revitalizes family autonomy, reshapes education, and reignites productive home economies.

February 16,2025

February 9,2025

Vice President JD Vance attended an AI summit in France, where he emphasized the Trump administration's commitment to American technological leadership in AI. Newt’s guest is Neil Chilson, head of AI policy at the Abundance Institute. They discuss various emergent technologies, including quantum computing, biotechnology, and small modular reactors. Chilson highlights the shift in focus at the AI Summit from safety concerns to ensuring global competitiveness and inclusion in AI advancements. Their discussion also addresses the regulatory landscape in the US and Europe, the global AI race, and the rivalry between Elon Musk and Sam Altman over OpenAI. Chilson emphasizes the importance of maintaining a pro-innovation environment in the US to stay ahead in the AI race.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the podcast, Neil Chilson, former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chief Technologist and current Head of AI Policy at the Abundance Institute dives into the transformative world of artificial intellignece (AI). He unpacks implications of China's AI advancements, with a focus on DeepSeek's open-source model, and he explains why open-source AI is crucial compared to closed systems like OpenAI's ChatGPT.Additionally, Chilson explores the U.S. regulatory environment, highlighting the surge of AI-related legislation and the cautious strategies of major U.S. tech players. Furthermore, he discusses the groundbreaking $500B Stargate initiative brought forth by Oracle, SoftBank and OpenAI to bolster AI Infrastructure.You can learn more about Neil Chilson on his website: NeilChilson.com or by following him on X by searching for his handle: @Neil_Chilson.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

December 8,2024

The most important decision President Trump may face is how to regulate artificial intelligence (AI). Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy at the Abundance Institute, is a policy insider with nearly two decades of experience inside the halls of power. Neil walks us through how to think about the tradeoffs and approaches to capturing the enormous potential upside of artificial intelligence while protecting against the downside risks. — Have questions or feedback about this episode? Drop us a note at Onward@Fundrise.com.  Onward is hosted by Ben Miller, co-founder and CEO of Fundrise. Podcast production by The Podcast Consultant. Music by Seaplane Armada.  About Fundrise  With over 2 million users, Fundrise is America's largest direct-to-investor alternative asset investment platform. Since 2012, our mission has been to build a better financial system by empowering the individual. We make it easier and more efficient than ever for anyone to invest in institutional-quality private alternative assets — all at the touch of a button.  Please see fundrise.com/oc for more information on all of the Fundrise-sponsored investment funds and products, including each fund's offering document(s).  Want to see the specific assets that make up and power Fundrise portfolios? Check out our active and past projects at www.fundrise.com/assets.

Washington's initial thinking about AI regulation has evolved from a knee-jerk fear response to a more nuanced appreciation of its capabilities and potential risks. Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I talk with technology policy expert Neil Chilson about national competition, defense, and federal vs. state regulation in this brave new world of artificial intelligence.Chilson is the head of AI policy at the Abundance Institute. He is a lawyer, computer scientist, and former chief technologist at the Federal Trade Commission. He is also the author of “Getting Out of Control: Emergent Leadership in a Complex World.”In This Episode* The AI risk-benefit assessment (1:18)* AI under the new Trump Administration (6:31)* An AGI Manhattan Project (12:18)* State-level overregulation (15:17)* Potential impact on immigration (21:15)* AI companies as national champions (23:00)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. The AI risk-benefit assessment (1:18)Pethokoukis: We're going to talk a bit about AI regulation, the future of regulation, so let me start with this: Last summer, the Biden administration put out a big executive order on AI. I assume the Trump administration will repeal that and do their own thing. Any idea what that thing will be?We have a lead on the tech, we have the best companies in the world. I think a Trump administration is really going to amp up that rhetoric, and I would expect the executive order to reflect the need to keep the US and the lead on AI technology.Chilson: The Biden executive order, repealing it is actually part of the GOP platform, which does not say a lot about AI, but it does say that it's definitely going to get rid of the Biden executive order. I think that's the first order of business. The repeal and replace process . . . the previous Trump administration actually had a couple of executive orders on AI, and they were very big-picture. They were not nearly as pro-regulatory as the Biden executive order, and they saw a lot of the potential.I'd expect a shift back towards a vision of AI as a force for good, I'd expect to shift towards the international dynamics here, that we need to keep ahead of China in AI. We have a lead on the tech, we have the best companies in the world. I think a Trump administration is really going to amp up that rhetoric, and I would expect the executive order to reflect the need to keep the US and the lead on AI technology.That emphasis differs from the Biden emphasis in what way?The Biden emphasis, when you read the executive order, it has some nice language up top about how this is a great new technology, it's very powerful, but overwhelmingly the Biden executive order is directed at the risk of AI and, in particular, not existential risk, more the traditional risks that academics who have talked about the internet have had for a long time: these risks of bias, or risks to privacy, or risks to safety, or deepfakes. And to be honest, there are risks to all of these technologies, but the Biden executive order to really pounded that home, the emphasis was very much on what are the problems that this tech could cause and what do we as the federal government need to do to get in here and make sure it's safe for everybody?I would expect that would be a big change. I don't see, especially on the bias front, I don't see a Trump administration emphasizing that as a primary thing that the federal government needs to fix about AI. In fact, with people like Elon Musk having the ear of the president, I would expect maybe to go in the opposite direction, that these ideas around bias are inflated, that these risks aren't really real, and, to the extent that they are, that it's no business of the federal government to step in and tell companies how to bias or de-bias their products.One thing that sort of confuses me on the Elon Musk angle is that it seemed that he was — at least used to be — very concerned about these somewhat science-fictional existential risks to AI. I guess my concern is that we'll get that version of Musk again talking to the White House and maybe he says, “I'm not worried about bias, but I'm still worried about it killing us all.” Is there any concern there, that that theme, which I think seems to have faded a little bit from the public conversation (maybe I'm wrong) that that will reemerge.I agree with you that I think that theme has faded. The early Senate hearings were very much in that vein, they were about the existential risk, and some of that was the people who were up there talking. This is something that's been on the mind of some of the leaders of the cutting edge of the tech space, and it's part of the reason why they got into it. There's always been a tension there. There is some sort of dynamic here where they're like, “This stuff is super dangerous and super powerful, so I need to be the one creating it and controlling it.” I think Musk still kind of falls in that bucket, so I share a little bit of that concern, but I think you're right that Congress has said, “Oh, those things seem really farfetched. That's not how we're going to focus our time.” I would expect that to continue even with a Musk-influenced administration.I actually don't think that there is necessarily a big tension between that and a pushback against the sort of red-tape regulatory approach to AI that was kind of the more traditional pessimistic, precautionary approach to technology, generally. I think Musk is a guy who hates red tape. I think he's seen it in his own businesses, how it's slowed down launches of all sorts. I think you can hate red tape and be worried about this existential risk. It's not necessarily in intentioned, but it'll be interesting to see how those play out, how Musk influences the policy of the Trump administration on AI.AI under the new Trump Administration (6:31)One issue that seemed to be coming up over and over again is differing opinions among technologists, venture capitalists, about the open-source issue. How does that play out heading into a Trump administration? When I listen to the Andreessen Horowitz podcast, those guys seem very concerned.They're going to get this software. They're going to develop it themselves. We can't out-China China. We should lean into what we're really good at, and that is a dynamic software-development environment, of which open source is a key component.So there's a lot of disagreements about how open source plays out. Open source, it should be pointed out first, is a core technology across everything that people who develop software use. Most websites run on open source software. Most development tools have a huge open source component, and one of the best ways to develop and test technology is by sharing it with people and having people build on it.I do think it is a really important technology in the AI space. We've seen that already, people are building smaller models, doing new things in open source that it costs a lot of money to do in the first instance, maybe in a closed source.The concerns that people raise is that this, especially in the national security space or the national competition, that this sort of exposes our best research to other countries. I think there's a couple of responses to that.The first one is that closed source is no guarantee that those people don't have that technology as well. In fact, most of these models fit on the thumb drive. Most of these AI labs are not run like nuclear facilities, and it's much easier to smuggle a thumb drive out than it is to smuggle a gram of plutonium or something like that. They're going to get this software. They're going to develop it themselves. We can't out-China China. We should lean into what we're really good at, and that is a dynamic software-development environment, of which open source is a key component.It also offers, in many ways, an alternative to centralized sources of artificial intelligence models, which can offer a bunch of user interface-based benefits. They're just easier to use. It's much easier to log into OpenAI and use their ChatGPT than it is to download and build your own model, but it is really nice as a competitive gap filler to have thousands and thousands of other that might do something specific, or have a specific orientation, which you can train on your own. And those exist because of the open source ecosystem. So I think it solves a lot of problems, probably a lot more than it creates.So what would you expect — let's focus on the federal level — for this congress, for the Trump administration, to do other than broadly affirm that we love AI, we hope it continues? Will there be any sort of regulatory rule, any sort of guidance, that would in any way constrain or direct this technology? Maybe it's in the area of the frontier models, I don't know.I think we're likely to see a lot of action at the use level: What are the various uses of various applications and how does AI change that? So in transportation and healthcare . . . this is a general purpose technology, and so it's going to be deployed in lots of spaces, and a lot of these spaces already have a lot of regulatory frameworks in place, and so I think we'll see lots of agencies looking to see, “Hey, this new technology, does it really change anything about how we regulate medical devices? If it does, how do we need to accommodate that? What are the unique risks? What are the unique opportunities that maybe the current framework doesn't really allow for?”I think we'll see a lot of that. I think, once you get up to the abstract model level, it's much harder to figure out what problem both are we trying to solve at the model level and do we have the capability to solve at the model level. If we're worried about people developing bio weapons with this technology, is making sure the model doesn't allow that, is that useful? Is it even possible? Or should we focus those attentions maybe down on, people can't secure the components that they need to execute a biohazard? Would that be a more productive place? I don't see a lot of action, honestly, at the model level.Maybe there'll be some reporting requirements or training requirements. The executive order had those, although they used something called the Defense Production Act — I think probably unconstitutionally, how they use that. But that's going to go away. If that gets filled in by Congress, that there's some sort of reporting regime — maybe that's possible, but Congress doesn't seem to be able to get those types of really high-level tech regulations across the line. They haven't done it with privacy legislation for a long time and everybody seems to think that would be a good idea.I think we'll continue to see efforts at the agency level. One thing Congress might do is they might spend some money in this space, so maybe there will be some new investment or maybe the national laboratories will get some money to do additional AI research. That has its own challenges, but most of them are financial challenges, they're not so much whether or not it's going to impede the industry, so that's kind of how I think it'll likely play out at the federal level.An AGI Manhattan Project (12:18)A report just came out (yesterday, as we're recording this) from the outside advisory group on US-China relations that advises the government, and they're calling for a Manhattan Project to get to an artificial general intelligence, I assume before China or anybody else.Is that a good idea? Do you think we'll do that? What do you make of that recommendation, which caused quite a stir when it came out?For the most part, artificial general intelligence, I don't understand what the appeal of that is, frankly . . . Why not train something that could do something specific really well?Yeah, it's a really interesting report. If you read through the body of the report, it's pretty standard international competitiveness analysis that says, “What are the supply chains for chips? How does it look? How do we compare on talent development? How do we compare on the industry backing investment?” Things like that. And we compare very well, overall, the report says.But then, all of a sudden at the top level, the first recommendation talks about artificial general intelligence. This is the kind of AI that doesn't exist yet, but it's the kind that could basically do everything a human could do at the intellectual level that a human could do it. It's interesting because that recommendation, it doesn't seem to be founded on anything that's actually in the report. There's no other discussion in the report about artificial general intelligence, or how important it is strategically, or anything like that, and yet, they want to spend Manhattan Project-level amounts of money — I think in today's dollars, that'd be like $30 billion to create this artificial general intelligence. I don't know what to make of that, and, more than that, I think it's very unlikely to move the policy discussion. Maybe it moves the Overton window, so people are talking like, “Yeah, we need a Manhattan Project,” but I don't think that it's likely to do anything.For the most part, artificial general intelligence, I don't understand what the appeal of that is, frankly. It has a sort of theoretical appeal, that we could have a computer that could do all the things that a person could do, but in the modern economy, it's actually better to have things that are really good at doing a specific set of things rather than having a generalist that you can deploy lots of different places, especially if you're talking about software. Why not train something that could do something specific really well? I think that would slot into our economy better. I think it's much more likely to be the most productive value of the intense computation time and money that it takes to train these types of models. So it seems like a strange thing to emphasize in our federal spending, even if we're talking about the national security implications. It would seem like it'd be much better to train a model that's specifically built for some type of drone warfare or something rather than trying to make it good at everythi ng and then say, “Oh, now we're going to use you to fly drones.” That doesn't seem to make a ton of sense.State-level overregulation (15:17)We talked about the federal level. Certainly — and not that the states seem to need a nudge, but if they see the Washington doing less, I'm sure there'll be plenty of state governments saying, “Well then we need to do more. We need to fill up the gap with our state regulation.” That already seems to be happening. Will that continue to happen and can the Trump administration stop that?I think it will continue to happen, the question is what kind of gap is left by the Trump administration. I would say what the Biden administration left was a vision gap. They didn't really have an overarching vision for how the US was going to engage with this technology at the federal level, unlike the Clinton administration which set out a pretty clear vision for how the federal government planned to engage on the early version of the internet. What it said was, for some really good reasons, we're going to let the commercial sector lead on development here.I think sending a signal like that could have sort of bully-pulpit effect, especially in redder states. You'll still see states like California and New York, they're listening to Europe on how to do stuff in this space.Still? Are we still listening to . . . Who are the people out there who think, “They've got it figured out”? I understand that maybe that's your initial impulse when you have a new technology and you're like, “I don't know what to do, so who is doing something on it?” But we've had a little bit of time and I just don't get anybody who would default to be like, “Man, we're just going to look at a couple of EU white papers and off to the races here in our state.”I think we're starting to see . . . the shopping of bills that look a lot like the way privacy has worked across the states, and in some cases are being pushed by the same organizations that represent compliance companies saying, “Hey, yeah, we need to do all this algorithmic bias auditing, or safety auditing, and states should require it.”I think a lot of this is a hangover of the social media fights. AI, if you poll it just at that level, if you're like, “Hey, do you think AI is going to be good or bad for your job or for the economy?” Americans are somewhat skeptical. It's because they think of AI in the cultural context that includes Terminator, and automation, and so they think of it that way. They don't think about the thousands of applications on their phones that use artificial intelligence.So I think there's a political moment here around this. The Europeans jumped in on and said, “Hey, we're the first to regulate in this space comprehensively.” I think they're dialing that back since some of their member states are like, “Hey, this is killing our own homegrown AI industry.” But for some reason, you're right, California and New York seem to be embracing that, and I think they probably will continue to. At the very local level, at the state level, there's just weird incentives to do something and then you don't really pay a lot of consequences down the road.Having said that, there was a controversial bill that was very aggressively pushed, SB 1047, in California over the summer, and it got killed. It got canned by Gavin Newsom in the end. And I think that's a sort of a unique artifact of California's “go along to get along” legislature process where even people who don't support bills vote for them, kind of knowing that Gavin, or that the governor, will bring down the veto when it doesn't make political sense.All of this is to say, California's going to California. I think we're starting to see, and what concerns me is, we're starting to see the shopping of bills that look a lot like the way privacy has worked across the states, and in some cases are being pushed by the same organizations that represent compliance companies saying, “Hey, yeah, we need to do all this algorithmic bias auditing, or safety auditing, and states should require it.”There's a Texas draft bill that has been floated right now, and you wouldn't think that Texas would be on the frontier of banning differential effects in bias from AI. It doesn't really sound particularly red-state-y, but these things are getting shopped around and if it moves in Texas, it'll move other places too. I worry about that level of red tape coming at the state level, and that's just going to be ground warfare on the legislative front at the state level.So federal preemption, what is that and how would that work? And is that possible?It's really hard in this space because the technology is so general. Congress could, of course, write something that was very broad and preempted, certain types of regulation of models, and maybe that's a good idea, I've seen some draft language around that.On the other hand, I do believe in federalism and these aren't quite the same sort of network-based technologies that only make sense in a national sweep. So maybe there's an argument that we should let states suffer the consequences of their own regulatory approaches. That hurts my heart a little bit just to think about the future because there are a lot of talented people in those states who are going to find out it's the lawyers who are their main constraint. Those types of transaction costs, they will slow us down. I think if it looks like we're falling behind in the US because we can't get out of our own way regulatorily, I think there will be more impulse to fix things.There are some other creative solutions such as interstate compacts to try to get people to level up across multiple states about how they're going to treat AI and allow innovation to flourish, and so I think we'll see more of those experiments, but it is really hard at the federal level to preempt just because there's so many state-based interests who are going to push back against that sort of thing.Potential impact on immigration (21:15)As far as AI influencing what we do elsewhere — one thing you wrote about recently in a really great essay, which I've already drawn upon in some of these questions is — thinking about immigration and AI talent coming to the United States — what I think is now a widely accepted understanding, that this is an important technology and we certainly want to be the leader in this technology — does that change how we think about immigration, at least very high-skilled immigration?We should be wanting the most talented people to come here and stay here.I think it should. Frankly, we should have changed our minds about some of this stuff a long time ago. We should be wanting the most talented people to come here and stay here. The most talented people in the world already come here for school often. When I was in computer science grad school, it was full of people who really desperately wanted to stay in the US and build companies and build products, and some of them struggled really hard to figure out a way to do it legally.I think that making it easier for those people to stay is essential to keeping not just our lead in the world, I don't want to say it that way — I mean that's important, I think national competitiveness is sort of underrated, I think that is valuable — but those people are the most productive in the US system where they can get access to venture capital that's unlike any other part of the planet. They can get access to networks of talent that are unavailable on other parts of the planet. Keeping them here is good for the US, but I think it's good overall for technological development, and we should really, really, really focus on how to make that easier and more attractive.AI companies as national champions (23:00)This isn't necessarily a specific AI issue, but again, as you said earlier, it seems like a lot of the debate, initially, is really a holdover from the social media debates about moderation, and bias, and all that, and a lot of those sorts of people, in many cases, and frameworks just got globed onto AI.Another aspect is the antitrust, and now we're worried about these big companies owning these platforms, and they're biased.Do we begin to look at issues of how we look at our big companies who have been leading in AI, doing a lot of R&D — does the politics around Big Tech change if we begin to see them as our vanguard companies that will keep us ahead of China?. . . in contrast to the Biden sort of “big-is-bad” rhetoric that they sort of leaned into entirely, I think a Trump administration is going to bring more nuance to that in some ways. And I do think that there will be more of a look towards our innovative companies as being the vanguard of what we do in the US.I think it already has, honestly. You saw early on, the Senate hearings around AI were totally inflected with the language of social media and that network-effects type of ecosystem. AI does not work like that. It doesn't work the same way. In fact, the feedback loops are so much faster from these models, we saw things like Google Gemini that had ahistorical renderings of the founding fathers, and that got so much shouting on Twitter, and on X, and lots of other places that Google very quickly adjusted, tweaked its path. I think we're seeing the toning down of that rhetoric and the recognition that these companies are creating a lot of powerful, useful products, and that they are sort of national champions.Trump, on the campaign trail, when asked about breaking up Google for an ongoing antitrust litigation was like, “Hold on guys, breaking up these companies might not be in our best interest. There might be other ways we can solve these types of problems.” I think that that level of, in contrast to the Biden sort of “big-is-bad” rhetoric that they sort of leaned into entirely, I think a Trump administration is going to bring more nuance to that in some ways. And I do think that there will be more of a look towards our innovative companies as being the vanguard of what we do in the US.Now, having said that, obviously I think there's tons of AI development that is not inside of these largest companies in the open source space, and especially in the application layer, building on top of some of these foundation models, and so I think that ecosystem is also extremely important. Things that sort of preference the big companies over the small ones, I would have a lot of concerns about, and there have been regulatory regimes proposed that, even while opposed by some of the bigger companies, would certainly be possible for them to comply with in a way that small companies would struggle to comply with, and open-source developers just don't have any sort of nexus with which to comply, since there is no actual business model that's propping that type of approach up. So I'd want to keep it pretty neutral between the big companies, the small companies, and open source, while having the cultural recognition that big companies are extremely valuable to the US innovation ecosystem.If you had some time with, I don't know, somebody, the president, the vice president, the Secretary of Commerce, someone in an elevator going from the first to the 10th floor, and you had to quickly say, “Here's what you need to be keeping in mind about AI over the next two to four years,” what would you say?I think the number one thing I would say is that, at the state level, we're wrapping a lot of red tape around innovative companies and individuals, and that we need to find a way to clear that thicket or stop it from growing any further. That's the number one challenge that I see facing this.Secondary to that, I would say the US government needs to figure out how to take advantage of these tools. The federal government is slow to adopt new technologies, but this technology has a lot of applications to the types of government work that hundreds of thousands of federal employees do every day, and so finding ways to streamline using AI to do the job better I think is really valuable, and I think it would be worth some investment at the federal level to think about how to do that well.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedMicro Reads▶ Economics* Productivity During and Since the Pandemic - San Francisco Fed* The Effect of COVID-19 Immigration Restrictions on Post-Pandemic Labor Market Tightness - St. Louis Fed* Trump Plans Tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico That Could Cripple Trade - NYT▶ Business* Nvidia's new AI audio model can synthesize sounds that have never existed - Ars* Europe's Mistral expands in Silicon Valley in hunt for AI staff - FT▶ Policy/Politics* Musk Wants $2 Trillion of Spending Cuts. Here's Why That's Hard. - WSJ* AI Governance: From Fears and Fearmongering to Risks and Rewards - AEI* Newsom says California to offer EV subsidies if Trump kills federal tax credit - Wapo▶ AI/Digital* A new golden age of discovery - AI Policy Perspectives* How Do You Get to Artificial General Intelligence? Think Lighter - Wired* Is Creativity Dead? - NYT Opinion* The way we measure progress in AI is terrible - MIT* AI's scientific path to trust - Axios* AI Dash Cams Give Wake-Up Calls to Drowsy Drivers - Spectrum▶ Biotech/Health* Combining AI and Crispr Will Be Transformational - Wired* Neuralink Plans to Test Whether Its Brain Implant Can Control a Robotic Arm - Wired* Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad for you - Economist▶ Clean Energy/Climate* Taxing Farm Animals' Farts and Burps? Denmark Gives It a Try. - NYT* These batteries could harness the wind and sun to replace coal and gas - Wapo▶ Robotics/AVs* On the Wings of War - NYT▶ Up Wing/Down Wing* ‘Genesis' Review: Rise of the New Machines - WSJ* The Myth of the Loneliness Epidemic - Asterisk▶ Substacks/Newsletters* The Middle Income Trap - Conversable Economist * America's Productivity Boom - Apricitas Economics* The Rise of Anthropic powered by AWS - AI Supremacy* Data to start your week - Exponential View* Trump's economic team is on a collision course with reality - Slow Boring* Five Unmanned SpaceX Starships to Mars in 2026 with Thousands of Teslabots - next BIG futureFaster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

October 20,2024

October 6,2024

September 22,2024

September 29,2024

September 15,2024

September 8,2024

September 1,2024

October 13,2024

August 18,2024

Allen Chilson, a recognized leader in the talent industry and frequent keynote and panelist speaker, joins Hiring University to talk about the importance of defining and defending company culture, AI pros and cons, and his win/loss prediction for his beloved Dallas Cowboys!  This is an episode you don't want to miss! "The last thing I want to do is totally rely on the data that I'm getting without having a conversation. Because if it's a fiercely competitive market to find the best people and you're throwing out those that are the outliers, you're missing a huge segment of the population. I think that is the risk and you're talking about some of the legal issues that the profiling and where the origin of the AI data is coming from that is going to get some people into trouble." - Allen ChilsonFor more Hiring University episodes tune into your favorite podcast player or visit us at www.ursusinc.com

August 11,2024

August 4,2024

Amy is joined by author Monette Chilson to discuss the biblical figures of Sophia, Lilith, and Eve, unpacking these figures as female archetypes and learning how we can reclaim them.Monette Chilson founded WomanSpirit Reclamation to support women in navigating their awakening from patriarchal indoctrination through online courses and community. She's written and spoken about the divine feminine for the past decade, authoring Sophia Rising: Awakening Your Sacred Wisdom Through Yoga, and My Name Is Lilith. Chilson also edited Original Resistance: Reclaiming Lilith, Reclaiming Ourselves, and developed its companion curriculum.Additional ResourcesWomanSpirit ReclamationThe Girl Child & Her Long Walk to FreedomSophia Rising: Awakening Your Sacred Wisdom Through Yoga, by Monette Chilson Original Resistance: Reclaiming Lilith, Reclaiming Ourselves: A Girl God Anthology, edited by Monette Chilson, Trista Hendren and Pat Daly,My Name is Lilith, by Monette Chilson, Illustrated by Arna BaartzEve, Our Mythic Mother: Exposing the Lies of Patriarchy, by Patricia Lynn Reilly

July 28,2024

June 9,2024

Since Greg Lambert is on vacation, we wanted to share an episode of Future Ready Business podcast, which Greg also produces. Art Cavazos and Courtney White from Jackson Walker, LLP, interview Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy at the Abundance Institute, and Travis Wussow, regulatory and governmental affairs lawyer Partner at JW. Neil and Travis had worked together at the Charles Koch Institute and are both heavily involved in advising governmental agencies and policy makers on the topic of AI. Neil Chilson and Travis Wussow both emphasize the complexity of regulating AI due to its broad applications and the difficulty in defining it. They argue that most AI applications fall into areas that already have existing regulatory frameworks, such as healthcare, intellectual property, and transportation. Chilson suggests that policymakers should focus on identifying specific harms and addressing gaps in current regulations rather than creating entirely new frameworks for AI. Regarding current AI policy, Wussow notes that litigation is already underway, particularly in areas like copyright infringement. He believes that proactive policymaking will likely wait until these legal disputes are resolved. Chilson highlights that there is significant activity at the federal level, with the White House issuing a comprehensive executive order on AI, and at the state level, with numerous AI-related bills being proposed. On the topic of AI's potential impact on elections and misinformation, Chilson expresses less concern about AI-generated content itself and more about the distribution networks that spread misinformation. He emphasizes the importance of maintaining trust in the electoral system and suggests that tracking and analyzing actual instances of AI use in elections is crucial for understanding its real impact. Looking to the future, both experts stress the importance of the United States maintaining its leadership in AI development. They argue that this leadership is essential for embedding American values into AI systems and preventing other countries, such as China, from dominating the field with potentially restrictive approaches. Chilson also highlights the potential for AI to revolutionize healthcare, emphasizing the need to adapt regulatory frameworks, particularly in areas like FDA approval processes, to allow for the benefits of AI-driven personalized medicine while ensuring safety and efficacy. Follow Future Ready Business Podcast Listen to TGIR on mobile platforms:   ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Contact Us:  X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@gebauerm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@glambert ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

May 12,2024

May 5,2024

Monette Chilson is an excavator of our sacred feminine lineage, and she founded WomanSpirit Reclamation to support women in navigating their awakening from patriarchal indoctrination through online courses and community. She has written and spoken about the divine feminine for the past decade, authoring Sophia Rising: Awakening Your Sacred Wisdom Through Yoga and My Name is Lilith, in addition to editing Original Resistance: Reclaiming Lilith, Reclaiming Ourselves and developing its companion curriculum. Monette's work has been featured in national magazines including Yoga Journal and Integral Yoga Magazine and in the anthologies Yoga Wisdom and Whatever Works: Feminists of Faith Speak. She is passionate about travel as a spiritual portal. You can connect to Monette's work at www.jointhereclamation.com and www.monettechilson.com SUPPORT: Support Monette's work by purchasing her books on Amazon, My Name is Lilith @ amazon.com/MyNameIsLilith and Sophia Rising @ amazon.com/SophiaRising or support the WomanSpirit Reclamation community by taking a course, becoming a sustaining member of the sisterhood, or purchasing from the marketplace. FOLLOW: You can find Monette online at jointhereclamation.com and @monettechilson and #womanspiritreclamation on Instagram, Linktr.ee, and Facebook. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thegirlfriendgod/message

Newt discusses the transformative potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) with Neil Chilson, the leader of AI policy at the Abundance Institute. Chilson explains that while AI has the potential to revolutionize various sectors, including healthcare and creative fields, there is a pervasive fear and pessimism surrounding the technology. He argues that this fear-based approach could hinder the full potential of AI. Chilson also discusses the Abundance Institute's focus on Artificial Intelligence and energy, emphasizing the need for regulatory changes to foster innovation in these areas. He invites those interested in a positive technological future to get involved with the Abundance Institute.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

March 31,2024

March 24,2024

March 17,2024

March 31,2024

February 18,2024

October 22,2023

October 15,2023

October 8,2023

October 1,2023

September 24,2023

September 17,2023

August 6,2023

July 30,2023

Today we have a special bonus episode of the podcast talking about season 2 of the charming Netflix series HEARTSTOPPER For our season 1 recap https://youtu.be/us8T7TX6E84 Follow Larry on twitter https://twitter.com/ChillyBoyYT Check out Larry's channel https://www.youtube.com/c/chillyboyproductions Check out 3 new classic novels at Baker Book House shop at https://bakerbookhouse.com/ Or use our affiliate link https://amzn.to/3OO2QrK Please support the podcast on patreon at https://www.patreon.com/hallmarkies For all of our interviews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGnHp37J4Ns&list=PLXv4sBF3mPUA_0JZ2r5fxhTRE_-RChCj5 Check out the merch store for #sluethers and #hallmarkies inspired merch https://www.teepublic.com/stores/hallmarkies?utm_campaign=Hallmarkies&utm_medium=8581&utm_source=affiliate Please support the podcast on patreon at https://www.patreon.com/hallmarkies Follow us on ITunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hallmarkies-podcast/id1296728288?mt=2 https://twitter.com/HallmarkiesPod on twitter @HallmarkiesPodcast on Instagram Check out our website HallmarkiesPodcast.com Follow Rachel on twitter https://twitter.com/rachel_reviews Follow Rachel's Reviews on youtube https://youtube.com/c/rachelsreviews

In episode 138, I told you the story of two-year-old Stevie Osborn, whose death on December 23, 2019 went all but unreported by the media. Stevie's mother, Abigail Osborn, and Abbey's boyfriend, Joseph Chilson, were investigated by the Missouri Department of Social Services Children's Division, which found by preponderance of evidence that both had committed neglect against Stevie and that Joe had committed the abuse that caused Stevie's fatal head injury.After Joe's suicide in 2021, the Clay County prosecutor's office decided not to file charges against Abbey. Abbey filed an appeal of the Children's Divisions earlier decision in an attempt to remove her name from the state child abuse registry. In this minisode, I'll give you the court's decision on that matter, as well as previously unreleased information from that bench trial. I'll also go over Joe's purported suicide note, which has not been released to the public.This episode is brought to you by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at https://betterhelp.com/STLC, and get on your way to being your best self.Photos related to today's episode can be viewed on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sufferthelittlechildrenpodYou can also follow the podcast on:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sufferthelittlechildrenpod Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/sufferthelittlechildrenpodcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/STLCpodTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@STLCpod My Linktree is available here: https://linktr.ee/stlcpod Visit the podcast's web page at https://www.sufferthelittlechildrenpod.com. Please help make the show my full-time gig to keep the weekly episodes coming! By supporting me on Patreon, you'll also access rewards, including a shout-out by name on the podcast and exclusive gifts. Pledges of $5 or more per month access ad-free versions of my regular Wednesday episodes. Pledges of $10 or more per month access a small but growing collection of Patreon-exclusive bonus minisodes! Visit www.patreon.com/STLCpod. You can also support the podcast at www.ko-fi.com/STLCpod. This podcast is researched, written, hosted, edited, and produced by Laine.For more stories like this one, visit https://sufferthelittlechildrenblog.com.Music for this episode is licensed from https://audiojungle.net. Subscribe to Suffer the Little Children:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/suffer-the-little-children/id1499010711Google Podcasts: https://playmusic.app.goo.gl/?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&isi=691797987&ius=googleplaymusic&apn=com.google.android.music&link=https://play.google.com/music/m/I5mx3lacxpdkhssmk2n22csf32u?t%3DSuffer_the_Little_Children%26pcampaignid%3DMKT-na-all-co-pr-mu-pod-16Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/suffer-the-little-childrenSpreaker: https://www.spreaker.com/show/suffer-the-little-children Pandora: https://www.pandora.com/podcast/suffer-the-little-children/PC:61848?part=PC:61848&corr=podcast_organic_external_site&TID=Brand:POC:PC61848:podcast_organic_external_siteSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0w98Tpd3710BZ0u036T1KEiHeartRadio: https://iheart.com/podcast/77891101/ ...or on your favorite podcast listening platform.This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/4232884/advertisement

As Wood County Sheriff's Office Criminal Investigations Captain Mike Chilson continued looking at the 2007 murder of 19-year-old Brittany McGlone, evidence against the prime suspect was stacking up to the point where an arrest seemed imminent. Chilson discovered physical evidence that was hard to ignore and reinterviewed witnesses who'd had some fairly damning recollections of the suspect on that terrible day. By the end of August 2022, Captain Chilson felt he had enough to make an arrest. And so did a Wood County judge. The suspect was found and arrested in Dallas. But 89 days after that arrest, a grand jury decided, seemingly with a nudge from the Wood County DA, that there was not enough evidence. The three-time convicted and violent felon was set free and justice for Brittany McGlone was once again in limbo. To this day, the district attorney has offered no explanation or even placation to Brittany's family. Part 3 of 3.If you have any information about the murder of Brittany Danielle McGlone, please contact the Wood County Sheriff's Office at 903-763-2201 or to be eligible for a cash reward, call Wood County Crime stoppers at 903-763-2274, that's 903-763-CASHYou can find out more about Brittany's family's fight for justice at: facebook.com/justiceforbrittanymcgloneIf you are able, please come out to Quitman, Texas on Thursday, May 4th, 2023, on the 16th anniversary of Brittany's murder, for a vigil and a demand for #JusticeForBrittanyMcGlone. You can find more info here: https://fb.me/e/Zrd72wF5To show your support for Fort Worth cold case victims and their families, please consider joining Thaw the Cold Cases on Saturday, April 29th, 2023 in the city's downtown. For more information, go to: https://fb.me/e/2ek81RvoO Please consider donating to the go fund me for Leon Laureles. You can find it at: gofundme.com/f/leon-laureles-private-detective-and-memorialOn Saturday, May 6th, 2023, a day of remembrance will be held for Leon in Brownwood. If you can make it, family and friends will be grateful. Find out more here: https://fb.me/e/4odEB3OH4 and remember, there still is no #JusticeForLeonLaurelesYou can support gone cold and listen ad-free at patreon.com/gonecoldpodcastFind us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram by using @gonecoldpodcast and on YouTube at: youtube.com/c/gonecoldpodcast#JusticeForBrittanyMcGlone #WoodCountyTX #WinnsboroTX #TX #Texas #TrueCrime #TexasTrueCrime #TrueCrimePodcast #GoneCold #GoneColdPodcast #ColdCase #Unsolved #Murder #ColdCase #UnsolvedMurder

On December 23, 2019, two-year-old Stevie Osborn was rushed to the hospital in Kansas City, Missouri, suffering from bruises all over her body, two skull fractures, and massive bleeding on the brain. After Stevie died during life-saving surgery, her death was ruled a homicide caused by blunt force trauma to the head. A report by child services pointed the finger squarely at two individuals, but a shocking act by the prime suspect in Stevie's murder brought the police investigation to a screeching halt.In this episode, you'll hear my conversation with Stevie's dad, Gary Osborn, who refuses to give up hope of seeing justice for his baby girl.This is the story of a little girl whose violent death has received almost zero media coverage and has never resulted in criminal charges. It's also the story of a heartbroken family who will do anything they can to keep her memory alive and to get some semblance of justice for her murder.This is the infuriating story of Stevie Osborn.Photos related to today's episode can be viewed on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sufferthelittlechildrenpodYou can also follow the podcast on:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sufferthelittlechildrenpod Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/sufferthelittlechildrenpodcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/STLCpodTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@STLCpod My Linktree is available here: https://linktr.ee/stlcpod Visit the podcast's web page at https://www.sufferthelittlechildrenpod.com. Please help make the show my full-time gig to keep the weekly episodes coming! By supporting me on Patreon, you'll also access rewards, including a shout-out by name on the podcast and exclusive gifts. Pledges of $5 or more per month access ad-free versions of my regular Wednesday episodes. Pledges of $10 or more per month access a small but growing collection of Patreon-exclusive bonus minisodes! Visit www.patreon.com/STLCpod. You can also support the podcast at www.ko-fi.com/STLCpod. This podcast is researched, written, hosted, edited, and produced by Laine.For more stories like this one, visit https://sufferthelittlechildrenblog.com.Music for this episode is licensed from https://audiojungle.net. Subscribe to Suffer the Little Children:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/suffer-the-little-children/id1499010711Google Podcasts: https://playmusic.app.goo.gl/?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&isi=691797987&ius=googleplaymusic&apn=com.google.android.music&link=https://play.google.com/music/m/I5mx3lacxpdkhssmk2n22csf32u?t%3DSuffer_the_Little_Children%26pcampaignid%3DMKT-na-all-co-pr-mu-pod-16Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/suffer-the-little-childrenSpreaker: https://www.spreaker.com/show/suffer-the-little-children Pandora: https://www.pandora.com/podcast/suffer-the-little-children/PC:61848?part=PC:61848&corr=podcast_organic_external_site&TID=Brand:POC:PC61848:podcast_organic_external_siteSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0w98Tpd3710BZ0u036T1KEiHeartRadio: https://iheart.com/podcast/77891101/ ...or on your favorite podcast listening platform.