Podcast appearances and mentions of Peter Thiel

Welcome back to The Majority Report On today's program: The House will vote on the National Defense Authorization Act today which includes the enmeshing of the Israeli and American militaries. Tell your Senators to block the NDAA until it is stripped of this proposal. At an appropriations committee hearing, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, dripping in flop sweat, grows increasingly defensive as he is questioned about the quagmire he coaxed Trump into starting in Iran. Hegseth tries to claim that Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) labeling this war a failure is an indictment of the troops to which the Senator clarifies that is Hegseth who is the failure, not the servicemembers. Hegseth tried to scapegoat the Biden administration, but Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) reminds him that the Strait of Hormuz never closed during the previous presidencies. Ken Klippenstein, independent journalist covering security and U.S. politics at KlipNews on Substack, joins the program to talk about the Trump administration's efforts to shut down all dissent from the left. In the Fun Half: Comedian and podcaster Francesca Fiorentini joins. If you live in Minneapolis grab tickets to see the Bitchuation Room live at the Parkway. Krystal Ball debates top house Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) over Israel and the DSA. Meghan McCain warns that the GOP are not taking Zohran Mamdani seriously and that he will be the kingmaker of the Democratic Party. AOC wonders if Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, or Peter Thiel would want an AI data center in their own backyards? Troy Jackson has effectively secured the Democratic nomination for Senate in Maine, and the media is already trying to slander him over his temper. all that and more. To connect and organize with your local ICE rapid response team visit ICERRT.com The Congress switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AM Quickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: ZOCDOC: Get 15% off OneSkin with the code MAJORITY at https://www.oneskin.co/majority SUNSET LAKE CBD: Use coupon code "Left Is Best" (all one word) for 20% off of your entire order at SunsetLakeCBD.com.  Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech On Instagram: @MrBryanVokey Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.

The merging of big-technology with the CIA, and general intelligence community, alongside of social and mainstream media, is well-established in both fact and conspiracy lore. However, tracking down the origins of companies like Palantir, Axonius, OpenAI, ShieldAI, Flock Safety, etc., traces the origin of this system of total surveillance mostly to Israel, though countries like China play a role too - though they have worked heavily with Google. Many of the companies involved also derive their names from mythical realms and draw upon the inspiration of the all-seeing eye. Now that eye is infiltrating classrooms. Nvidia-backed Figure AI has been pushed by the White House directly, with its humanoid robot. Now the New York State Salamanca City Central School District is introducing Sally, a lifelike silicone teacher who will know students not by name but ID number. Sally is made by Reealbotix, which draws heavily from the language models of OpenAI, Meta and Google. Two are their hyper-realistic robots were given Hebrew names: Aria and David. Besides robotics, the U.S. has spent $30 billion to replace paper with digital devices in schools. This has reportedly led to a noticeable decline in cognitive ability among Gen Z. Although countries like Japan are famous for electronics, and have implemented similar policies in schools, Japanese students still outperform American students in most areas. Could this mean that perhaps the issue is far more related to effort and study than it is to technology? Then again, according to PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), Japan had the lowest of all OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries for screen time. A study form the University of Tokyo also found that using paper strengthened brain activity more than screens, which has contributed to some schools taking a hybrid approach -- just like with gasoline and electric vehicles.*The is the FREE archive, which includes advertisements. If you want an ad-free experience, subscribe below.

CELÝ ROZHOVOR V DÉLCE 60 MIN. JEN NA ⁠HTTPS://HEROHERO.CO/CESTMIR⁠⁠⁠⁠ A ⁠HTTPS://FORENDORS.CZ/CESTMIR „Kdyby nám to všechno vypnuli, tak jsme prostě slepí a bezmocní.“ Evropa podle novináře Petra Koubského postupně přišla o politickou, vojenskou i technologickou moc a svůj každodenní život přenechala americkým firmám. Od map v telefonu přes operační systémy až po cloud, na kterém běží služby, bez nichž už neumíme fungovat. Dokud byly Evropa a Spojené státy přáteli, nikdo o této závislosti příliš nepřemýšlel. Teď se ale ukazuje, že na naší straně Atlantiku toho mnoho nezbylo a vybudovat vlastní technologické zázemí bude možná úkolem na dvacet let. Koubský přitom věří, že umělá inteligence téměř úplně nahradí i práci, kterou dnes dělá on sám. Přesný rok už slíbit nechce, ale jestli to bude o pět let dříve, nebo později, je podle něj z dlouhodobého hlediska jedno. Práce, při níž člověk většinu dne sedí u počítače, píše, čte a pracuje s čísly, je podle něj snadno nahraditelná. Lidská práce nezmizí, její těžiště se ale přesune. Poté, co AI přetvoří velkou část duševních profesí, zůstane prostor především pro ty nejlepší. Většině lidí navíc nebude záležet na tom, jestli text vytvořil člověk, nebo stroj. Pro malou a náročnou část publika se ale budou dál vytvářet věci postaru, podobně jako se pro náročnou klientelu ručně šijí boty. „Žijeme ve světě, kde je možné absolutně všechno,“ dodává novinář, kterého už prý dlouho nic nepřekvapilo. V devadesátých letech podcenil internet natolik, že o připojení Československa k síti otiskl jen několik řádků. Dnes sleduje další změnu, jejíž skutečné důsledky opět nedokážeme dohlédnout. Kolem AI se podle něj nafukuje investiční bublina a nikdo zatím neví, jak na umělé inteligenci spolehlivě vydělávat. Do hry navíc vstupují lidé jako Elon Musk, Sam Altman nebo Peter Thiel, jejichž výroky jsou podle Koubského „hodně znervózňující“ a kteří koncentrují obrovskou moc bez skutečné kontroly. A zatímco se přeme o to, zda klimatická změna vůbec existuje, příroda na naše názory nečeká. „S fyzikou diskutovat nemůžete,“ upozorňuje Koubský. Teplota tání ideologií podle něj leží ve střední Evropě někde kolem 35 stupňů a lidé pravděpodobně budou muset nejprve narazit do zdi, aby dostali rozum. Jak bezmocná by byla Evropa, kdyby se americké technologie skutečně vypnuly? Má smysl dětem zakazovat sociální sítě, nebo je musíme naučit, jak se v nich bezpečně pohybovat? A proč politici podle něj říkají nesmysly, kterým možná sami nevěří? I to se dozvíte v rozhovoru s Petrem Koubským.

Why are so many political activists crashing into severe burnout and depression? Can the deep psychology of Carl Jung provide a radical toolkit for modern survival without retreating from the fight? In this episode of Varnblog, we sit down with ecotherapist and author Rob Faure Walker to deconstruct his groundbreaking book, Radical Jung .We dive into a mind-bending exploration bridging the Marxist radical imagination with Jungian analytical psychology. Rob shares his personal journey through school teacher union organizing, severe activist burnout, and finding spiritual navigation via dream integration and Gnostic texts. Together, we unpack how modern capitalism has become truly nihilistic, why mainstream psychoanalysis often defaults to isolationist individualism, and how right-wing figures like Jordan Peterson have weaponized and essentialized Jungian concepts on hierarchy and gender .Furthermore, we explore the terrifying intersections of state power, counter-extremism governmentality , and how billionaire techno-oligarchs like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Mark Zuckerberg project their own "shadow of privilege" onto marginalized groups while building automated survival bunkers and centralizing control .If you are looking for a deeper psychological toolkit to understand the algorithm's control over our unconscious mind , structural political failure , and the path toward true recovery , this deep-dive conversation is for you.✨ Grab Rob Faure Walker's new book, Radical Jung, out now from Revo Press!Send us Fan Mail Musis by Bitterlake, Used with Permission, all rights to BitterlakeSupport the showCrew:Host: C. Derick VarnIntro and Outro Music by Bitter Lake.Intro Video Design: Jason MylesArt Design: Corn and C. Derick VarnLinks and Social Media:twitter: @varnvlogblue sky: @varnvlog.bsky.socialYou can find the additional streams on YoutubeCurrent Patreon at the Sponsor Tier: Jordan Sheldon, Mark J. Matthews, Lindsay Kimbrough, RedWolf, DRV, Kenneth McKee, JY Chan, Matthew Monahan, Parzival, Adriel Mixon, Buddy Roark, Daniel Petrovic,Julian, Drea, Free Beer 

Baetz, Brigitte www.deutschlandfunk.de, @mediasres

Founders ✓ Claim : Read the notes at at podcastnotes.org. Don't forget to subscribe for free to our newsletter, the top 10 ideas of the week, every Monday --------- What I learned from reading Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future by Peter Thiel and Blake Masters (for the 3rd or 4th time) Made possible by: Ramp: ⁠https://ramp.com⁠ Applovin: ⁠https://www.applovin.com/⁠ Vanta: ⁠https://vanta.com/founders

Polymarket isn't just a betting app — it might be the newest branch of the surveillance state. This week on Conspiracy Social Club, we break down journalist Whitney Webb's bombshell investigation tying Polymarket's origins to Palantir, Peter Thiel, DARPA's Information Awareness Office, and the Pentagon's decades-long obsession with predictive markets. We trace the lineage from John Poindexter's Iran-Contra-linked "Policy Analysis Market" all the way to today's prediction-market boom — plus the Zuckerberg and Bancor connections nobody's talking about. Then things get heated: Trump's claims of a massive Chinese data breach exposing 220 million voter profiles kicks off a full-blown 2020 election fight — FISA warrants, Carter Page, Thomas Massie's "Deep Throat" theory, election recounts in Arizona and Georgia, mail-in ballot security, and whether democracy itself is already broken. As always, it's not a debate without chaos — comment of the week, TRT talk, and way too many tangents. Get in the comments and let us know where you stand.

In 1776 — that same year America declared its independence — Adam Smith published the equally revolutionary The Wealth of Nations, his founding explanation of national economic value. Two hundred and fifty years later, Tim O'Reilly argues in the free-market Economist that Elon Musk and his fellow tech barons are building a monarchical form of capitalism that the proto-democratic Smith would have hated. Musk, O'Reilly reports, believes that SpaceX will become “worth more than the rest of Earth”. The merchants are becoming princes, O'Reilly warns. And the rest of us are becoming peasants. Such is the road to serfdom in our AI age. So who should own the AI in our bewildering age of multi-trillion dollar start-ups like SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI? Or as That Was The Week publisher Keith Teare asks in his latest editorial, who should own the “intelligence” of our AI age? Keith uses a bottling plant as a metaphor to describe our dilemma. Since no single entity can own this intelligence — the sum total of our common experience — charging us for it would be like seizing the Earth's water supply and selling it back to us, Coca-Cola style, in plastic bottles. Except that the Hayekian Keith approves of the bottling process. Private companies, rather than governments, he argues, are most suited to doing this. For Keith, this dilemma is also an opportunity to redistribute the ownership of intelligence. He argues for a “Human Wealth Fund” into which every consequential AI company should put a slice of its equity. In the manner of Norway's sovereign wealth fund, this fund would be distributed to all citizens. Rather than Denmark, now we should become like Norway, a tiny homogenous nation with a cultural distaste for Muskian individual wealth. Not very realistic, I fear. On top of that, it's hard to imagine our tech princes collaborating on anything. Musk and Altman aren't on speaking terms while Altman and Amodei, who also loathe each other, are focused on their IPOs. Meanwhile, the Trump administration, which presumably would coordinate this fund, is pitching a $100,000-a-month fast feed of the president's posts. Keith's question, “who owns the intelligence”, is the right one. But the answer won't come from trickle-down funds set-up by our tech princes. Such supposed munificence is about as likely as America becoming Norway. Read the fine print of any “Human Wealth Fund” set up by Sam Altman and Elon Musk. As we should know all too well by now, when a “revolutionary” Silicon Valley gives stuff away, it turns out to be exorbitantly expensive. Free plastic bottles of intelligence, anyone? Five Takeaways •       Intelligence, Not AI. The week's framing shift: the word AI is too small, because AI is merely the tool for harvesting and delivering the thing itself — intelligence, the sum total of our common human experience. Keith argues the renaming is not semantic but political: the moment intelligence sits at the center of the discussion, everyone's opinion has to be shaped by what it actually is, and the idea that any single entity could own it starts to look as bizarre as owning the world's water supply. Andrew's rejoinder: they're still just words — though he concedes intelligence is the better one. •       Bottled Intelligence Is Good — The Question Is Who Benefits. Keith refuses the critic's role: bottling intelligence, like Google's bottling of the world's words into search, is a good thing, because only massively capitalized private companies can innovate at that scale — and between private entities and governments as owners of intelligence, he'll take the companies every time. What's wrong is the distribution of the benefits. Even insiders are complaining: Alex Karp is publicly angry at OpenAI and Anthropic's pricing, while China's Kimi K3 — released the day of recording and, Keith claims, better than Claude Fable — signals that very good models are about to get very cheap. •       Capitalism Adam Smith Would Hate. Tim O'Reilly argues in The Economist that Musk and his type are building a capitalism Smith would despise — founders as monarchs, a point Henry Farrell reinforces with a slide from Peter Thiel's startup class placing the king of a monarchy and the founder of a startup side by side. Keith's response is characteristically unsentimental: Smith would have hated everything since the Federal Reserve, and the founder-king structure — Larry and Sergey's voting shares, Zuckerberg's special rights, corporations bigger than countries with user bases bigger than China — is simply the stage of capitalism we're at. The question is whether there's a path from here to somewhere better. •       The Human Wealth Fund. Keith's path comes in two versions: government-down, a sovereign wealth fund holding AI equity for every citizen; or company-up, the AI companies voluntarily endowing a global fund — and it only takes one to move first, because everyone else would have to react. His proxy is Norway, where every citizen benefits from ownership — not payouts, ownership — in the oil fund; AI revenues, unlike Norwegian oil, could eventually drive most of a doubled global GDP. His critique of the Brynjolfsson economists' much-signed statement is that “must act now” is vacuous: he'd have added a point four naming the actual mechanism. •       The Bet. Andrew's counter-case: Musk and Altman loathe each other, the mob hates AI so thoroughly that no pro-AI politician can survive, the states from Newsom's California to Florida are embracing nothing, New York just enacted the first data center moratorium, and the founders — eyes on their IPOs — are in the pockets of the banks. Hence the wager: 5% of the Teare Wealth Fund says no Human Wealth Fund this year, and none in the twenties. Keith declined the bet, on principle: he's an advocate, and only through advocacy does public opinion change. As Andrew put it: keep fighting the good fight — maybe one of the crazy ideas will stick. About the Guest Keith Teare is the founder and editor of the That Was The Week tech newsletter, and Andrew's weekly co-host. A British-born Silicon Valley entrepreneur and investor, he was a co-founder of TechCrunch and runs the Palo Alto–based venture firm SignalRank. He and Andrew have been arguing about technology — productively — every week for years. References: •       That Was The Week — Keith's newsletter; this week's editorial argues that the word AI is too small, and that the central question of the age is who owns intelligence. •       Tim O'Reilly in The Economist — on Elon Musk building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate, quoting Musk's claim that SpaceX will become worth more than the rest of the Earth. •       Henry Farrell — the big tech critic's companion piece, featuring the slide from Peter Thiel's startup class that plac...

This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.There was an issue with this only going to paid subscribers, so sending it again. Apologies to those who get it twice. I appreciate being paid so feel free to upgrade if you enjoy TWTW.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president

This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president could still fire commissioners, as the Court now permits, but if those firings broke quorum, the agency would be unable to proceed until replacements were confirmed. The guardrail would

SPONSORS: 1) GHOST BED: Get an extra 10% off GhostBed mattresses—built for cooling, comfort, and support—by going to https://GhostBed.com/julian and using promo code JULIAN at checkout. Some exclusions apply; see site for details. 2) MOOD: Get 20% off your first order of federally legal cannabis gummies, flower, and more at https://mood.com with promo code JULIAN. JOIN PATREON FOR EARLY UNCENSORED EPISODE RELEASES: https://www.patreon.com/JulianDorey CLIPPERS DISCORD: https://discord.gg/8QmWEKJ3BT (***TIMESTAMPS in Description Below) ~ Douglas Rushkoff is a media theorist, writer, lecturer & documentarian. He is best known for his advocacy of open source solutions to social problems, and also has written many books on topics including the occult, society, media, and technology. His latest book, "Survival of the Richest" reveals how 5 mysterious billionaires summoned Douglas Rushkoff to the desert for a private talk. DOUGLAS' LINKS - YT: https://www.youtube.com/@douglasrushkoff - WEBSITE: https://rushkoff.com/ FOLLOW JULIAN DOREY INSTAGRAM (Podcast): https://www.instagram.com/juliandoreypodcast/ INSTAGRAM (Personal): https://www.instagram.com/julianddorey/ X: https://twitter.com/julianddorey JULIAN YT CHANNELS - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Clips YT: https://www.youtube.com/@juliandoreyclips - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Daily YT: https://www.youtube.com/@JulianDoreyDaily - SUBSCRIBE to Best of JDP: https://www.youtube.com/@bestofJDP ****TIMESTAMPS**** 0:00 - Club of Rome, Bilderberg & Survival of the Richest 10:46 - Peter Thiel Thinks We're Satanists 12:12 - Cancer Cures They Won't Tell You About 20:27 - Timothy Leary, Terence McKenna & Psychedelic Tech 32:00 - How Technology Was Corrupted & We Became the Product 42:00 - Gen Z Fighting Back & the Luddite Revolution 50:00 - AI China Race & Why Being First Is Always the M.O. 1:01:45 - Nick Land, Capitalism as a Living Thing & Quantum Folding 1:11:50 - Billionaires Lose Empathy & Capitalism Goes Bad 1:19:52 - Steve Bannon Wanted Doug on War Room 1:29:58 - Peter Thiel: Monarchy Is the Best Form of Government 1:39:22 - Why China's AI Policy Beats Ours 1:49:35 - Brush With the Epstein Class & the Edge Foundation 2:01:15 - Harvey Weinstein at a Party & Your Spidey Senses 2:09:20 - Text Shabbat & Why 12 Steps Is the Right Model 2:18:34 - Bloody Revolution — You Become Your Attacker 2:29:08 - Transhumanism & Peter Thiel's God 2:41:02 - What Happens When We Die & the Conscious Universe 2:58:19 - Doug's Work CREDITS: - Host, Editor & Producer: Julian Dorey - COO, Producer & Editor: Alessi Allaman - https://www.youtube.com/@UCyLKzv5fKxGmVQg3cMJJzyQ - In-Studio Producer: Joey Deef Julian Dorey Podcast Episode 450 - Douglas Rushkoff Music by Artlist.io Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Jeffrey Epstein used his access to powerful people and institutions to secure a $25 million payment from Edmond de Rothschild's Swiss private bank during a federal investigation into whether the bank helped wealthy Americans hide assets from the IRS. Epstein introduced the bank's leader, Ariane de Rothschild, to former Obama White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler, who had recently returned to Latham & Watkins. Ruemmler and her legal team conducted the substantive work of reviewing bank records and negotiating with the Justice Department, while Epstein remained involved behind the scenes as a connector and adviser. Documents show Epstein arranged a compensation structure tied to the size of the bank's eventual penalty, with his payment increasing to $25 million if the settlement came in below $100 million. The bank ultimately agreed to pay approximately $45.5 million, allowing Epstein to collect the maximum fee even though the law firms representing the bank reportedly received only about $10 million combined.The arrangement also provides new insight into Epstein's close relationship with Ruemmler, who is scheduled to answer questions before the House Oversight Committee. Emails indicate Epstein introduced her to influential figures including Bill Gates, Peter Thiel and Ehud Barak, while Ruemmler sometimes referred to him as “Uncle Jeffrey” and accepted expensive gifts from him. Although one source said Epstein had no direct role in the detailed legal work, Ruemmler discussed hiring him as a consultant through her firm, partly to protect their communications through attorney-client privilege. Ruemmler has maintained that she knew Epstein only while working in private practice, saw no evidence that he was continuing to abuse women and had no knowledge of ongoing criminal activity. The documents nevertheless show how Epstein transformed introductions, perceived expertise and elite relationships into enormous profits while preserving his influence years after becoming a registered sex offender.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:How Jeffrey Epstein parlayed his elite network into a $25 million payday - CBS News

Richard Rosso & Jonathan McCarty explore some of the biggest retirement and investing questions facing Americans today. We examine how SECURE Act 2.0 is accelerating the "Rothification" of retirement savings, why catch-up Roth contributions remain a powerful planning tool, and what investors need to know about employer Roth matching and the long-term tax implications. We also tackle one of the hottest debates in retirement planning: Are dividend stocks really safer, or are investors being seduced by yield? We examine the arguments popularized by Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman, discuss whether dividends actually provide better retirement income, and explain why total return—not yield alone—should drive long-term investment decisions. Along the way, we'll discuss how today's market environment, disruptive technologies, and changing tax policies could reshape retirement planning for years to come. Plus, we preview our upcoming "Narrative Busters" series, where we challenge some of Wall Street's most widely accepted investment beliefs. 0:00 INTRO 0:19 - Butt stuff & Taxes 3:39 - MAHA & Homeopathy (Health & Wealth are Connected) 5:45 - Secure Act 2.0 & Rothification of America 9:53 - Do Not Stop Catch-up Contributions to Roths 12:58 - Putting Employer Matches in Roth accounts 14:15 - Dealing with Tax Implications (Bending Over) 15:45 - Temperature Technology 19:11 - Take the Pain of Taxes Now vs Later (Will They Tax Our Roths?) 20:23 - The Roth Saga of Peter Thiel 22:48 - The Tax Cascade is Coming 25:05 - Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey Rationale on Dividend Paying Stocks 27:58 - Dividend = Safety? 32:47 - Seduced by Yield 37:00 - If You Want Income... 39:15 - Impact of Disruptive Companies 40:39 - Narrative Busters tease (Which Ghost Buster is Who? Hosted by RIA Advisors Director of Financial Planning, Richard Rosso, CFP w Senior Investment Advisor, Jonathan McCarty, CFP Produced by Brent Clanton, Executive Producer ------- Do you enjoy our content? Rate us on Google: https://bit.ly/4b9JtEo ------- Watch Today's Full Video on our YouTube Channel: ------- Watch today's "Before the Bell" premarket commentary, "Is Market Leadership Changing?" https://youtu.be/-NtwWZUvZBA ------- Watch our previous show, "Winning Less, Investing Better" https://youtube.com/live/K-mLdepNr6Y?feature=share ------- Get more info & commentary: https://realinvestmentadvice.com/insights/real-investment-daily/ ------- * REGISTER for our next Candid Coffee, "Narrative Busters: Market Stories Investors Should Approach With Caution," Saturday, July 18, 2026: https://streamyard.com/watch/RfJtCj2byfDr --- Visit our Site: https://www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN --- Subscribe to SimpleVisor : https://www.simplevisor.com/register-new --- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #RetirementPlanning #RothIRA #DividendInvesting #TaxPlanning #FinancialPlanning

Jeffrey Epstein used his access to powerful people and institutions to secure a $25 million payment from Edmond de Rothschild's Swiss private bank during a federal investigation into whether the bank helped wealthy Americans hide assets from the IRS. Epstein introduced the bank's leader, Ariane de Rothschild, to former Obama White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler, who had recently returned to Latham & Watkins. Ruemmler and her legal team conducted the substantive work of reviewing bank records and negotiating with the Justice Department, while Epstein remained involved behind the scenes as a connector and adviser. Documents show Epstein arranged a compensation structure tied to the size of the bank's eventual penalty, with his payment increasing to $25 million if the settlement came in below $100 million. The bank ultimately agreed to pay approximately $45.5 million, allowing Epstein to collect the maximum fee even though the law firms representing the bank reportedly received only about $10 million combined.The arrangement also provides new insight into Epstein's close relationship with Ruemmler, who is scheduled to answer questions before the House Oversight Committee. Emails indicate Epstein introduced her to influential figures including Bill Gates, Peter Thiel and Ehud Barak, while Ruemmler sometimes referred to him as “Uncle Jeffrey” and accepted expensive gifts from him. Although one source said Epstein had no direct role in the detailed legal work, Ruemmler discussed hiring him as a consultant through her firm, partly to protect their communications through attorney-client privilege. Ruemmler has maintained that she knew Epstein only while working in private practice, saw no evidence that he was continuing to abuse women and had no knowledge of ongoing criminal activity. The documents nevertheless show how Epstein transformed introductions, perceived expertise and elite relationships into enormous profits while preserving his influence years after becoming a registered sex offender.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:How Jeffrey Epstein parlayed his elite network into a $25 million payday - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Jeffrey Epstein used his access to powerful people and institutions to secure a $25 million payment from Edmond de Rothschild's Swiss private bank during a federal investigation into whether the bank helped wealthy Americans hide assets from the IRS. Epstein introduced the bank's leader, Ariane de Rothschild, to former Obama White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler, who had recently returned to Latham & Watkins. Ruemmler and her legal team conducted the substantive work of reviewing bank records and negotiating with the Justice Department, while Epstein remained involved behind the scenes as a connector and adviser. Documents show Epstein arranged a compensation structure tied to the size of the bank's eventual penalty, with his payment increasing to $25 million if the settlement came in below $100 million. The bank ultimately agreed to pay approximately $45.5 million, allowing Epstein to collect the maximum fee even though the law firms representing the bank reportedly received only about $10 million combined.The arrangement also provides new insight into Epstein's close relationship with Ruemmler, who is scheduled to answer questions before the House Oversight Committee. Emails indicate Epstein introduced her to influential figures including Bill Gates, Peter Thiel and Ehud Barak, while Ruemmler sometimes referred to him as “Uncle Jeffrey” and accepted expensive gifts from him. Although one source said Epstein had no direct role in the detailed legal work, Ruemmler discussed hiring him as a consultant through her firm, partly to protect their communications through attorney-client privilege. Ruemmler has maintained that she knew Epstein only while working in private practice, saw no evidence that he was continuing to abuse women and had no knowledge of ongoing criminal activity. The documents nevertheless show how Epstein transformed introductions, perceived expertise and elite relationships into enormous profits while preserving his influence years after becoming a registered sex offender.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:How Jeffrey Epstein parlayed his elite network into a $25 million payday - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

It's been branded “the scariest company on the planet” and it is busy weaving itself into the fabric of Britain's NHS, defence establishment and beyond. Peter Thiel's Palantir has a terrible reputation – but do its products even work as billed? As MPs call for Palantir's £330m NHS contract to be scrapped and fears grow over Big Brother-style data sharing, we talk to Democracy for Sale founder Peter Geoghegan whose investigation into Palantir reveals a company that's a lot better at schmoozing than delivery – and how Peter Mandelson's lobbying firm helped land the NHS deal.How did a controversial US tech firm – whose AI powers military strikes in Gaza and Iran and ICE's immigration raids, and whose founder Peter Thiel thinks the NHS makes people sick – wheedle its way into Westminster? And what can we do about it? • Read about Peter and Lucas Amin's investigation on Democracy for Sale • Read the full 7,000 word investigation on the London Review of Books• Back us on Patreon – www.patreon.com/bunkercastWritten and presented by Group Editor Andrew Harrison. Producer: James Liddell. Audio production: Robin Leeburn. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. Music: Kenny Dickinson. THE BUNKER is a Podmasters Production.www.podmasters.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Protect Your Retirement with a PHYSICAL Gold and/or Silver IRA https://www.sgtreportgold.com/ CALL( 877) 646-5347 - You Can Trust Noble Gold --------- GET REVIVE (and Kimchi One) from Brightcore – Heal Yourself from the Inside Out! Get 25% Off – Use Code: SGT at https://www.mybrightcore.com/SGT Or call (888) 688-0642 for up to 50% OFF, Free Shipping & a FREE gift!! The billionaire class has one last card to play before their souls meet their maker: Immortality. They want to live FOREVER and Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel and other very rich guys are investing billions in not just transhumanist AI, they are investing in biological life hacks that they hope will allow them to stick around on planet earth for decades to come. THIS is the TRUTH about what they are up to with our friend Kim Bright the founder of Brightcore. Thanks for tuning in.   https://rumble.com/embed/v7ak64q/?pub=2peuz

Jim Love covers four major technology stories shaping the future of AI, investing, and digital society. A new Verasight survey finds growing public support for stronger AI regulation and Senator Bernie Sanders' proposed American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, including a one-time 50% stock tax on the largest AI companies to create an estimated $7 trillion public wealth fund. New York becomes the first U.S. state to pause new hyperscale AI data center approvals while it develops new environmental and energy rules, reflecting growing grassroots resistance to massive AI infrastructure projects in North America and beyond. The episode also examines the sharp decline in SpaceX shares following their IPO, along with major losses for IBM and Oracle, asking whether investors are beginning to rethink the enormous cost of the AI buildout. Finally, a Fortune report reveals a striking trend among technology's biggest names. Many of the people who built today's digital world—including Peter Thiel, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Evan Spiegel, and even Mark Zuckerberg—have chosen to limit their own children's exposure to smartphones and social media. Timestamps 00:00 Headlines and Intro 00:40 AI Wealth Fund Push 02:36 Oversight and Trust Gap 05:37 New York Data Center Moratorium 06:22 Global Pushback on AI Buildouts 07:55 SpaceX Slides After IPO 08:51 IBM, Oracle and the AI Investment Question 10:24 Why Tech Leaders Limit Their Kids' Screen Time 12:24 Wrap Up and Support the Show Topics Covered AI regulation Bernie Sanders AI Sovereign Wealth Fund OpenAI Anthropic Artificial Intelligence New York data center moratorium AI data centers SpaceX stock IBM earnings Oracle stock Larry Ellison Nvidia AI investing Social media and children Peter Thiel Bill Gates Mark Zuckerberg Technology news Tech podcast Hashtag Trending

Flock cameras are all the new rage. We have finally forgotten or lost interest in smart meters, Stingray, Dirtbox, PRISM, etc. Flock Safety systems are being installed without consultation of the public, and sometimes reinstalled without permission from local authorities. Sometimes they're randomly placed. These cameras and sensors are supposed to keep communities safer, but what they ultimately do, even according to law-enforcement, is create a dragnet surveillance grid in local communities. They've already been used to fine and jail people for crimes that they did not commit. Perhaps the worst part, but not unlike Axonius, Palantir, Waze, ShieldAI, and so forth, is that the two primary investors are the Peter Thiel group and Andreessen Horowitz, a company directly rooted in Israel. Furthermore, resistance to these cameras being installed is being labeled terrorism. It's also not out of the realm of possibility that many of the cameras that have been cut down, have been removed by law-enforcement, community officials, or the company itself in order to paint the technology as a victim of ignorant and violent citizens.*The is the FREE archive, which includes advertisements. If you want an ad-free experience, subscribe below.

Geoff Woo is the co-founder and managing partner of Anti Fund and a co-founder of Ketone-IQ and Archive. In this conversation, we break down choke points and information asymmetry — how smart money hunts for bottlenecks in AI, semiconductors, tungsten, and power. We also cover defense tech, humanoid robots, biohacking, Trump's aura in the Oval Office, and where bitcoin fits into Geoff's portfolio after 13 years of holding.======================Need liquidity without selling your crypto? Take out a Figure Crypto-Backed Loan, allowing you to borrow against your BTC, ETH, or SOL with 12-month terms, 8.91% interest rates, and no prepayment penalties. Or check out Democratized Prime (https://figuremarkets.co/pomp) and earn ~9% APY on real world assets, paid hourly. Unlock your crypto's potential today at Figure! https://figuremarkets.co/pomp Figure Lending LLC dba Figure (NMLS 1717824). Loans subject to approval. Crypto collateral may be liquidated. Terms apply - see full disclosures at figure.com/disclosures/======================This episode is brought to you by mogul ( https://www.mogul.club/pomp ). Deloitte estimates that $4 trillion of real estate will move onto the blockchain over the next decade. Through tokenized residential real estate, mogul gives investors access to professionally managed properties with targeted yields, monthly rent payouts, and potential tax benefits — all without the headaches of being a landlord. Learn more and claim a special offer at https://www.mogul.club/pomp See important disclosures at disclaimer.mogul.club.======================Arch Public is an agentic trading platform that automates the buying and selling of your preferred crypto strategies. Sign up today at https://www.archpublic.com and start your automated trading strategy for free. No catch. No hidden fees. Just smarter trading.======================0:00 - Intro1:00 - Why VCs are hunting for choke points in every industry4:45 - Can OpenAI & Anthropic crush every AI startup?13:40 - How Geoff uses AI daily & the tungsten choke point17:43 - Investing across public & private markets25:48 - The memory trade, CapEx & the power/fusion bet33:07 - How top investors like Peter Thiel play every trend at once35:03 - Inside Anti Fund's defense thesis39:50 - AI, robots & the ethics of force45:15 - The Waymo & teenagers story52:18 - Facial recognition & the end of privacy54:44 - Neuralink vs ultrasound brain-computer interfaces57:05 - Biohacking, sleep & the future of longevity1:06:33 - Gambling, hustle culture & internet fame1:22:20 - Geoff's honest take on bitcoin1:26:19 - Where to find Anti Fund

Patrick Bet-David and the Home Team break down America's 250th birthday, Trump's calls with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky, Iran's funeral for Ayatollah Khamenei and what comes next, Peter Thiel's explosive comments about Pope Leo and AI, plus the biggest business, political, and cultural stories shaping America.------

The demand for power is growing, but the grid can't handle it. Now, the governors of 11 Western states are trying to move forward with a $60 billion plan to upgrade transmission lines. Joel Ferry, Utah's commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, joins us to explain what the plan would do.Then, many teachers say performance pay unfairly pits teachers against one another. But two new studies say it could benefit students. Chalkbeat's Matt Barnum breaks down the controversy.And, The Hollywood Reporter's Gary Baum shares what he found in an investigation into Objection, a tech startup backed by Peter Thiel that holds artificial intelligence tribunals to scrutinize journalism.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Was, wenn der Gottesglaube allmählich verdunstet? Wenn die Kirchen zu Eventlokalen mutieren? Der Religionssoziologe Detlef Pollack würde dies bedauern, obwohl er selbst nicht gläubig ist. Doch warum? Was verliert eine Gesellschaft, wenn sie den Glauben verliert? Auf Tiktok, Instagram und Youtube missionieren christliche und muslimische Influencerinnen und Influencer fleissig und sprechen vor allem ein junges Publikum an. Tech-Milliardär Peter Thiel hält in Rom Vorträge über den «Antichristen». Donald Trump betet im Oval Office. Und in der Schweiz scheinen Freikirchen wieder an Zulauf zu gewinnen. Dennoch ist Detlef Pollack überzeugt: Der Gottesglaube ist auf dem Weg, in der Bedeutungslosigkeit zu versinken. Der renommierte Religionssoziologe forscht am Centrum für Religion und Moderne der Universität Münster und hat für die Neuauflage seines Buches «Religion in der Moderne» weltweite Daten zu Religiosität und Glauben zusammengetragen. Selbst im Iran und in den USA verlöre die Religion an Rückhalt. Wer nun meine, die Menschen kehrten der Religion den Rücken, fänden aber Zuflucht in alternativen Formen der Spiritualität wie Meditation, Yoga oder Schamanismus, liege ebenso falsch, sagt Pollack. Auch Spiritualität nehme weltweit ab. Beunruhigend oder eher befreiend? Barbara Bleisch fragt nach, ob etwas – und falls ja, was – fehlen würde, wenn die Menschheit ganz vom Glauben abfiele. Wiederholung vom 5. April 2026

Los programas que crea Palantir para gobiernos y servicios de inteligencia de todo el mundo se han convertido en la herramienta que usan para vigilar inmigrantes y disidentes. Se trata de una suerte de Gran Hermano que ha llegado a colaborar en el bombardeo de Gaza y en el uso que efectúa la CIA para controlar a millones de ciudadanos. La polémica empresa creada por Peter Thiel acaba de llegar a España, en donde han sido señalada por Moncloa, pero antes había llegado a conseguir dos contratos oficiales que por valor de casi 20 millones de Euros.

Was, wenn der Gottesglaube allmählich verdunstet? Wenn die Kirchen zu Eventlokalen mutieren? Der Religionssoziologe Detlef Pollack würde dies bedauern, obwohl er selbst nicht gläubig ist. Doch warum? Was verliert eine Gesellschaft, wenn sie den Glauben verliert? Auf Tiktok, Instagram und Youtube missionieren christliche und muslimische Influencerinnen und Influencer fleissig und sprechen vor allem ein junges Publikum an. Tech-Milliardär Peter Thiel hält in Rom Vorträge über den «Antichristen». Donald Trump betet im Oval Office. Und in der Schweiz scheinen Freikirchen wieder an Zulauf zu gewinnen. Dennoch ist Detlef Pollack überzeugt: Der Gottesglaube ist auf dem Weg, in der Bedeutungslosigkeit zu versinken. Der renommierte Religionssoziologe forscht am Centrum für Religion und Moderne der Universität Münster und hat für die Neuauflage seines Buches «Religion in der Moderne» weltweite Daten zu Religiosität und Glauben zusammengetragen. Selbst im Iran und in den USA verlöre die Religion an Rückhalt. Wer nun meine, die Menschen kehrten der Religion den Rücken, fänden aber Zuflucht in alternativen Formen der Spiritualität wie Meditation, Yoga oder Schamanismus, liege ebenso falsch, sagt Pollack. Auch Spiritualität nehme weltweit ab. Beunruhigend oder eher befreiend? Barbara Bleisch fragt nach, ob etwas – und falls ja, was – fehlen würde, wenn die Menschheit ganz vom Glauben abfiele. Wiederholung vom 5. April 2026

Cosmic LOVE Newsletter of the Week with Metaphysician Christopher Rudy You can find the Newsletters archived below: June 30, 2026, Brace Yourself Folks - Keep Your Head https://www.heartcom.org/BraceYourself.htm July 4, 2026, Revolution Revelations - July 4th https://www.heartcom.org/July4th2026.htm July 10, 2026, Aquarian Infrastructure - Emerging Blueprint https://www.heartcom.org/250years.htm Brace Yourself Folks Keep Your Head, Revolution Revelations and Aquarian Infrastructure Love as Frequency, Consciousness, and Creative Force Dr. Christopher Rudy opens the program with an AI-generated Cosmic Love theme song co-produced with Donald Newsom, using its lyrics as a foundation for the episode's central message. He describes love not only as an emotion or moral ideal, but as a frequency, a sacred rhythm, and a form of spiritual energy in action. Rudy connects this concept with what he calls the Holy Spirit, conscious evolution, and humanity's movement into an “Aquarian quantum age” in which reality is increasingly understood through energy, harmonics, interconnectedness, and the accelerating influence of artificial intelligence. AI and the Acceleration of Human Knowledge Rudy argues that artificial intelligence is rapidly increasing humanity's ability to organize, compare, and recognize patterns across scientific, spiritual, and historical information. He refers to the Genesis Project and claims that AI may help recover or synthesize suppressed quantum research dating back to Nikola Tesla, potentially compressing centuries of innovation into a much shorter period. From his perspective, this acceleration is contributing to a “great awakening” or “great enlightenment,” although he acknowledges that different people may experience this transition at different speeds and that no exact timetable is guaranteed. A Metamorphosis of Collective Consciousness Using the image of a caterpillar entering a cocoon before becoming a butterfly, Rudy describes present global instability as part of a larger transformation in human consciousness. He says old political, economic, medical, and social systems are disintegrating while new structures based on unity, shared sovereignty, abundance, and collective conscience are still forming. He presents his Heartware concept as a possible communication framework through which large numbers of people could respond to information using shared ethical and consciousness-based criteria, thereby cultivating what he calls social conscience within digital networks. Astrology, Quantum Fields, and a Time of Intensity The host offers what he calls a cosmic weather report, interpreting current astrological configurations as indicators of strong spiritual, psychological, and social energies. He discusses planetary alignments involving Pluto, Uranus, Neptune, and Venus, linking them with innovation, spiritual fire, transformation, and the reorganization of consciousness. Rudy also relates these energies to his own recent healing crisis and nervous-system exhaustion, while describing astrology, acupuncture, frequency medicine, and quantum healing as interconnected systems for understanding energy. These claims are presented as his metaphysical and health-related interpretations rather than established medical or scientific conclusions. War, Surveillance, and Systems of Control Rudy then summarizes several recent newsletters in which he addresses geopolitical conflict, corporate power, banking institutions, surveillance technology, medical systems, and what he views as suppressed information. He references Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, Israel, Palantir Technologies, Peter Thiel, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the military-industrial and medical-industrial complexes. He argues that war, disease, scarcity, and surveillance have become profitable systems of control, while also repeating controversial claims about COVID-19, vaccines, deep-state operations, and population reduction. Throughout this portion, Rudy presents these assertions as his own interpretation of alternative media reports and linked sources, not as independently verified findings. From Scarcity Economics to an Abundance Model A major theme of the episode is Rudy's belief that humanity must transition from an economy based on scarcity, competition, and centralized control to one based on abundance, free energy, ethical technology, and shared prosperity. He maintains that advanced energy and healing technologies have been suppressed and suggests that releasing them could reduce pollution, lessen conflict over resources, and transform economic life. He connects this envisioned change with first principles of cosmic law, geometric models of consciousness, constitutional freedoms, and a new “currency of conscience” designed to place ethical responsibility and human welfare above profit. The Emerging Blueprint for a Golden Age In closing, Rudy describes humanity as moving through a prolonged evolution in which artificial intelligence, quantum science, communication technologies, and spiritual awareness may eventually converge. He frames this as a transition from awakening into a higher collective consciousness, sometimes described as fifth-dimensional or Christ-like awareness. While acknowledging that the process may unfold over months, years, or longer, he urges listeners to remain hopeful, cultivate love and courage, examine their own consciousness, and become active participants in the transformation they wish to see.

Miljardairs als Elon Musk, Sam Altman en Peter Thiel zetten met hun besluiten de wereldorde en de democratische rechtsstaat op scherp en grijpen diep in in ons dagelijks leven. In hun boek De Techbro’s ontrafelen Volkskrant-journalisten George van Hal en Laurens Verhagen de politieke, economische en filosofische overtuigingen die Silicon Valley domineren. Ze leggen bloot hoe jongensdromen over onsterfelijkheid en goddelijke macht, vaak geïnspireerd door dystopische sciencefiction, samengaan met een drang om de democratie te ondermijnen. George van Hal leest een hoofdstuk uit De Techbro’s voor, dat als voorpublicatie verscheen in de Volkskrant. Montage en sounddesign: Tiemen HagemanEindredactie: Julia van Alem, Jasper VeenstraIllustratie: TzenkoSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What I learned from reading Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future by Peter Thiel and Blake Masters (for the 3rd or 4th time) Made possible by:  Ramp: ⁠https://ramp.com⁠  Applovin: ⁠https://www.applovin.com/⁠  Vanta: ⁠https://vanta.com/founders

In this episode of Crazy Wisdom, Stewart Alsop sits down with Javier Rolandi, who works in investor relations and communications, for a wide-ranging conversation that moves from the SpaceX IPO and the trust people place in Elon Musk to Javier's own path through electronics, literature, and linguistics in Argentina. They talk about science fiction as a lens on the present, arguing over Borges versus Cortázar and touching on Philip K. Dick, before turning to Stewart's treasure hunt project and what it means for adults to reclaim a sense of play. The back half of the episode gets into bigger cultural territory: the Peter Pan syndrome as it shows up in Buenos Aires and Silicon Valley, the demographic crisis and why people are hesitant to commit to marriage or kids, the immigrant roots of Argentina's tight-knit communities, and a closing debate about solarpunk versus cyberpunk futures and whether religion still has a role to play in building a more human-centered utopia.Timestamps00:00 – Opening dive into the SpaceX IPO and why people place so much trust in Elon Musk's competence. 05:00 – Javi traces his non-linear path into technology, from electronics school to a lifelong love of science fiction. 10:00 – A close look at Borges, his puzzle-like short stories, and layered literary references. 15:00 – Javi picks Cortázar as his favorite, then Stewart demos his treasure hunt game idea. 20:00 – More treasure hunt details, plus the pelotudo/al pedo language game. 25:00 – Javi's fading interest in building electronics and why adult play still matters. 30:00 – The Peter Pan syndrome, Buenos Aires neighborhoods, and staying stuck in teenage behavior. 35:00 – The demographic crisis, Peter Thiel's arrival, and commitment to marriage and kids. 40:00 – How the internet reshapes connection beyond borders and nations. 45:00 – Solarpunk vs. cyberpunk and Argentina's potential as a utopian model. 50:00 – Argentina's immigrant roots, tribal bonding, and ethnic clubs in Buenos Aires. 55:00 – Closing thoughts on religion, ecumenism, and staying optimistic about humanity.Key InsightsTrust in visionary founders like Elon Musk isn't really about understanding the technical details of something like SpaceX—it's about faith in a person's competence to pull off things that would sound crazy coming from anyone else.Javier's relationship with technology has always been non-linear: an early fascination with electronics gave way to literature and linguistics, and only later did a startup career pull him back toward tech, showing that curiosity doesn't have to follow a straight professional line.Science fiction endures because it's never really about the future—it's a way of examining the decisions being made today and how they'll ripple outward, which is why Javier finds himself circling back to present-day questions after every story or film.Reclaiming play as an adult, whether through treasure hunts or simply being unembarrassed in public, isn't regression—it's a deliberate rebellion against the idea that growing up means becoming serious and losing creativity.The demographic shift away from marriage and kids may be less about capability and more about marketing: people who look unhappy while promoting commitment aren't going to convince anyone that the traditional path is worth choosing.Argentina's strong culture of community and friendship traces back to waves of immigrants who had to lean on each other to survive, a tribal instinct that still shapes how people bond in Buenos Aires today.The tension between solarpunk and cyberpunk visions of the future comes down to whether technology serves human connection or overshadows it, and Javier argues Argentina—with its resources and family-oriented culture—is well positioned to lean toward the more hopeful, human-centered version.

Why we're seeing a rise in geopolitical gambling, speculation, and insider trading. Why the Iran War ceasefire was always going to fail. How to make sense of China's submarine-launched ballistic missile test over the Pacific, and why anti-imperialism is the only solution. Peter Theil calls Pope Leo a Chinese communist agent. And the devastation over the Graham Platner scandal.  Subscribe to the Un-Diplomatic Newsletter: https://www.un-diplomatic.com/  Watch Un-Diplomatic Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@un-diplomaticpodcast  Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the individuals and not of any institutions

Adrian Goldberg highlights a brilliant Byline Times investigation by Nafeez Ahmed and Peter Jukes which exposes the links between Cambridge University, Reform UK and the Trump-supporting US tech billionaire Peter Thiel… The individual who connects all three is James Orr – who is both an associate professor of Divinity at Cambridge AND Head of Policy at Reform. He's been described as Nigel Farage's kingmaker. Orr runs a postgraduate compound in Cambridge , which has hosted various controversial figures including Peter Thiel himself, his protégé, US vice-president JD Vance, Dutch anti-Islam campaigner Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Canadian anti woke activist Jordan Peterson.  Nafeez and Peter raise serious questions about student safeguarding, the funding of Orr's operation and, ultimately, foreign influence in UK politics. Produced by Adrian Goldberg and Harvey White In Birmingham. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Die Demokratie ist weltweit unter Druck. Warum das mit der digitalen Transformation zusammenhängt, erklärt der Philosoph Ziad Mahayni in seinem Vortrag. Ziad Mahayni ist Professor für Angewandte Ethik an der Hochschule Karlsruhe und Leiter des Zentrum für ethische Fragen im 21. Jahrhundert. Der Vortrag von Ziad Mahayni heißt "'I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible' – Zum Stand der Demokratie im Digitalzeitalter". Er hat ihn am 29.10.2025 im Rahmen der Ringvorlesung "'Schöne neue Welt? Welche Zukunft sieht die Digital-Oligarchie für uns vor?" gehalten. Veranstalter der Ringvorlesung sind das Zentrum für ethische Fragen im 21. Jahrhundert und das Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse. ********** +++ Deutschlandfunk Nova +++ Hörsaal +++ Deutschlandradio +++ Wissenschaft +++ Vortrag +++ KI +++ Künstliche Intelligenz +++ Digitale Transformation +++ Big Tech +++ Solutionismus +++ Demokratie +++ Kriese +++ Freiheit +++ Unternehmerische Freiheit +++ Informationen +++ Wahrheit +++ Debatte +++ Diskurs +++ Partikularisierung +++ Konsens +++ Zentralismus +++ Daten +++ Datenschutz +++ Regulierung +++ Macht +++ Machtkonzentration +++ Beschleunigung +++ Postwachstum +++**********In dieser Folge mit: Moderation: Nina Bust-Bartels Vortragender: Ziad Mahayni, Philosoph, Hochschule Karlsruhe**********Ihr hört in diesem Hörsaal:1:38 - Einleitung8:28 - Krise der Demokratie23:27 - Digitale Transformation und Demokratie25:30 - Zentralistische Struktur von KI30:59 - Desinformation und Demokratie40:39 - Die Psycho-Krise44:36 - Beschleunigung in der Moderne52:41 - Gesellschaftsvorstellungen des Big Tech58:22 - Tech-Solutionismus1:00:14 - Wege aus der Krise der Demokratie**********Quellen aus der Folge:Edelman Trust BarometerKörber Stiftung: Demokratie in der KriseThe Education of a Libertarian**********Empfehlungen aus der Folge:Ziad Mahayni, Mensch-Sein im Zeitalter Künstlicher Intelligenz, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2025Rainer Mühlhoff, Künstliche Intelligenz und der neue Faschismus, Stuttgart: Reclam 2025Hartmut Rosa, Beschleunigung. Die Veränderung der Zeitstruktur in der Moderne, Frankfurt a. Main: Suhrkamp 2005 **********Mehr zum Thema bei Deutschlandfunk Nova:Digital-Oligarchie: Der Rechtsruck der Big-Tech-BossePopulismus als Waffe: Wie Big Tech Demokratie und Öffentlichkeit kaputtmachtDigital-Oligarchie: Elon Musk, Peter Thiel und der Transhumanismus**********Den Artikel zum Stück findet ihr hier.**********Ihr könnt uns auch auf diesen Kanälen folgen: TikTok und Instagram .

Download MP3 | Watch Video Episode Full Timestamps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRojR7jDLDhzQ9r8xrLymUOUfwfe28YSPTzQFsmuZ9iS3DrzGZsb8E_Bg-YzxagkQhT6ozDunn4KsFC/pub Watch full episodes: https://www.youtube.com/@CastleSuperBeastArchive NEW CASTLE SUPER BEAST "LEGACY" SHIRT & DESKMAT AVAILABLE NOW: https://www.orchideight.com/collections/castle-super-beast Go to http://buyraycon.com/superbeast to get 20% off The Everyday Earbuds Classics. Take control of your income. Start your free trial at http://shopify.com/superbeast Go to http://brooklynbedding.com/ and use promo code SUPERBEAST to get 30% off Docket: Physical disc production ending in January 2028 for new games releasing on PlayStation consoles Saying they're killing physical media like a week after deleting purchased movies off of accounts is an absolutely hysterical optics decision to make And the same day you announce the closure of the Vita and PS3 digital stores. PlayStation Has Clearly Learned Nothing From Helldivers 2, As Marvel Tokon Is Being Blocked In 132 Countries. Any country that doesn't have PSN won't be able to play the PC version Sony: switch out lever gates with ease on the FlexStrike wireless fight stick…MightyKeef - Reverse the disc-less decision, fuck nigga. Chinese game Love and Deepspace canceled a new love interest after furious fans mailed cow poo to the developers. The studio has now promised it will never add another romance option to the game again and issued a massive apology JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Steel Ball Run 2nd Stage | Official Trailer: Streaming every friday starting Sptember 25th from 2nd and 3rd stage, 11 episodes in total, Jojo Fridays are (kinda) backl Avatar Aang: The Last Airbender | Official Movie Trailer | Paramount+ | Avatar Young Ladies Don't Play Fighting Games | Official Trailer | Crunchyroll Former Xbox president Sarah Bond, former Roblox chief product officer Manuel Bronstein, and Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick have been linked with a secret society called 'Dialog' organised by controversial billionaire and conservative activist Peter Thiel.  

To Sign up for our Patreon go to-> Patreon.com/cultofconspiracypodcastTo Find The Cajun Knight Youtube Channel---> click hereTo Find The Meta Mystics Spotify--> Click Herehttps://flavorsforest.com/cult/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/cult-of-conspiracy--5700337/support.

DR1THINGS WE MISSEDThe meritocracy is still a lie: ‘Don't look at the résumé': Elon Musk admits he's ‘fallen prey' to flashy credentials and says conversation matters most when hiring“Generally, what I tell people—I tell myself, I guess, aspirationally—is, don't look at the résumé,” he said. “Just believe your interaction. The résumé may seem very impressive…but if the conversation after 20 minutes is not ‘Wow,' you should believe the conversation, not the paper.”“I think goodness of heart is important.”Four Black women. Nine degrees. Not one steady paycheck.The president promised to save “Black jobs,” but his policies have resulted in fresh pain for the Black middle class as the employment gap widens.Study: Women are more likely to get hired after taking GLP-1sZuck still sucks: Mark Zuckerberg Sure Sounds Eager to Get Young People Hooked on Online GamblingThe Meta CEO is developing a social network betting market app—and wants help from Polymarket and Kalshi.Starbucks “Actively Reassessing” 2030 Climate GoalStarbucks initially unveiled its climate goal in 2020, targeting a 50% reduction in Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions by 2030, on a 2019 basis.While the company's impact report indicates that it has succeeded in cutting operational emissions, with Scope 1 and 2 falling 17% since 2019, wider value chain emissions have continued to climb, with Scope 3 rising by 8% since 2019. With Scope 3 accounting for over 90% of overall emissions, Starbucks has seen its GHG footprint grow by 7% overall since 2019.The reassessment of the goal comes as the company takes “a fresh, comprehensive look at our sustainability goals,” according to a blog post by Starbucks' Chief Sustainability and Social Impact Officer Kelly Goodejohn, as part of the company's ‘Back to Starbucks' strategy initiated by CEO Brain Niccol. From the Impact Report:Overall Grants from the Starbucks FoundationFY25 $13.6M ($31M)FY24 $21.4M ($96M)Delaware Court of Chancery Interprets New Section 144 and Applies Heightened Presumption of Director IndependenceThe Opinion arose in a common context in Delaware stockholder litigation: claims over director and management compensation. In the decision, Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will applied, for the first time, the statute's heightened presumption of independence for directors of public companies determined by the board to be independent under the relevant NYSE or Nasdaq listing standards to dismiss derivative claims on demand futility grounds.In conducting the demand futility analysis, which looks to whether a majority of the board can independently consider a stockholder demand to bring derivative litigation, the Court reasoned that the new statutory language requiring a plaintiff to plead “substantial and particularized facts” to rebut the “heightened” presumption of independence sets a higher bar than under pre-existing law. Specifically, the Court held that the addition of “substantial” to the existing standard that already required particularized facts meant that “a plaintiff must plead specific, non-conclusory facts of sufficient qualitative significance to support a reasonable inference of a material interest or relationship that would impair the director's objective judgment.” The Court was clear that it is not a matter of quantity but rather quality, observing that “a collection of trivial facts” will not rise to the level of materiality required to satisfy this “heightened” standard. Applying that standard to the facts in the case, the Court concluded that the plaintiff's allegations of various overlapping board positions, overlapping investments, and other “business ties” with the company's founder and non-executive chairman were not sufficiently material.DR2The Boardroom Buy-InThe Taser CEO Who Says AI Is the Future of PolicingTaser and body-cam king Rick Smith is betting Axon's dominance—and his own pay package—on his tech-driven vision66% influenceRick Smith: Every 30 seconds one of his Tasers is fired by somebody in the U.S., usually a police officer.The pay package he and his board put together catapulted him to the top of last year's list of the highest-paid CEOs, with a compensation package valued at $164.4 million.33% no 2025; 10% no 2026Smith has already hit three of seven goals. At the end of 2025, Axon estimated the shares underlying the full award could be worth nearly $386 million.IN: Not a dictatorshipOne share one voteBlackRock 9.3%The Vanguard Group 11.6%Patrick Smith 3.5 %OUT: Patrick Smith 66% influence MMWith Chair Michael Garnreiter (2006-); sits on Audit, Compensation Committee, and Nominating committeesCompensation Committee chair Hadi Partovi (2010-): Smith (‘91) and Partovi (‘94) both members of the Theta Eta chapter of Sigma Chi at HarvardOUT: Patrick Smith ignores his board: In the wake of the tragic 2022 school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Smith announced that Axon would begin developing Taser-equipped drones that could fly into classrooms to incapacitate active shooters.This decision was made unilaterally, bypassing Axon's own independent AI Ethics Board.The board issued a rare, public rebuke of Smith, accusing him of "trading on the tragedy" of school shootings to push a dangerous idea.Consequently, 9 of the 12 ethics board members resigned in protest, citing a total loss of faith in Axon's ability to act responsibly.Smith was forced to publicly back down and pause the project. IN: The CEO Performance award was specifically voted on in 2024 and passed, barely, but it passed: 50.1% yesNintendo Boss to Give Sweeping 10% Salary Raise to Retain EmployeesWhile most of the players in the gaming industry continue to hemorrhage jobs, Nintendo is opting to take a different path. The Kyoto-based gaming giant has recently announced a 10% increase to base salaries for its employees, a move that highlights its commitment to talent retention while everyone else is laying off employees.Nintendo president Shuntaro Furukawa made the announcement during a recent shareholder meeting, emphasising that maintaining competitive compensation is central to the company's strategy. The raise applies to the company's workforce, which has grown to over 8,200 employees, the highest headcount in Nintendo's history.IN: CEO Shuntaro Furukawa's (18%) annual executive compensation at Nintendo generally totals around $2.5MOUT: 63% of shares held by institutional investors. What the hell do these suits know about video games? IN: Of six outside directors, 3 are women (20% average in Japan)IN: Because they literally have questions like this at their annual meeting, in fact it was the first one: “With the release of Splatoon Raiders approaching, how does Nintendo evaluate the previous title, Splatoon 3? Some players experienced communication errors and discrepancies in hit detection in that title. I feel that Nintendo's response to these issues may not have been consistent with “sincerity,” one of the values in the Nintendo DNA.”Copart CEO Jeff Liaw to step down, Jay Adair to returnCEO Jeff Liaw will step down from his position and leave the board of directors effective July 31, 2026.Executive Chairman Jay Adair to resume the CEO role on the same date. Adair previously served as Copart's CEO. Liaw will assist with the transition as Special Advisor to Adair.Liaw has been with the online vehicle auction company for approximately a decade, serving first as CFO, then as President, before becoming the company's third CEO.OUT: Leadership messiness, highlighted by a boomerang CEO and so much more:The board has a Chair (founder Willis Johnson 40%) AND an Executive Chair: Willis' son-in-law and co-founder and boomerang CEO Jay Adair 38%The board also included resigning CEO/former CFO Jeff Liaw and former COO Jim Meeks and former Copart executive Steve CohanIN: a boomerang marks a return to the glory days?former CEO Liaw is actually leaving the boardStock price down 50% over past few yearsOUT: A dumb board for an online car auction company:12 directors5 are former or current executivesOne independent director with an car experience: sort of.Matt Blunt is the president of the American Automobile Policy Council, which represents the public policy interests of Stellantis N.V., Ford Motor Company, and General Motors CompanyServed as the governor of the State of Missouri from 2005 to 2009.Only 2 women.3 directors involved as a private inverter or venture capitalIN: CEO Pay Ratio is 46:1Liaw $2.1MAdair $432k for certain benefits MM1Things We MissedDOL's Replacement ESG Rule Reaches White HouseThe rule isn't interesting in and of itself - it reverts to Trump's prior rule in his first term that basically said ESG (E+S really) is dumb, and that everything must be "pecuniary focused”But the interesting part this time around:Trump also signed an executive order in December 2025 directing the DOL to tighten fiduciary rules governing proxy voting and to increase transparency about plan sponsors' use of proxy advisers. The department issued a technical release in April warning that proxy advisory firms may be subject to ERISA fiduciary standards and that proxy voting is a fiduciary act under the law that must be carried out “for the exclusive purpose of maximizing risk-adjusted return.”From the technical release in April: The Department has long recognized that voting rights and other shareholder rights attributable to shares held by ERISA-governed employee benefit plans are plan assets in their own right. Accordingly, management of those rights is subject to ERISA's fiduciary duties, including the duties of prudence and loyalty. The Department first issued guidance on this topic in the 1980s. For example, a 1988 letter (Avon Letter) noted that “it is the Department's position that the decision as to how proxies should be voted . . . are fiduciary acts of plan asset management.”(2)Proxy advisory firms may also be functional fiduciaries under ERISA section 3(21)(A)(ii) by providing investment advice for a fee to plans with respect to property of that plan.Here's why it's interesting:Defining fiduciaries as those who provide advice for a fee means everyone selling research is a fiduciary if the research is used in an investment decisionThe DOL is squarely defining proxy voting as a fiduciary act - which means that there can be no rational apathy as Mike Levin likes to talk about - if voting your proxies is definitionally your fiduciary duty, you can't defer it or ignore itIf you vote 99% in favor of management, you definitionally are ignoring your fiduciary duty - half of companies will underperform some peer set, meaning they produced fewer returns than peers, in any given year. So you either set the time frame longer (thus forcing the inclusion of long term data like climate and social factors) and say that in any one year it makes sense to vote with management to allow them time to execute strategy, OR you should be voting against nearly half of management proposals for underperformers each year because they are not producing pecuniary returnsGovernance chairs remain under pressure as investor scrutiny rises despite rising support for directors, research showsISS found that the MEDIAN support for directors has hit 98%They found that governance/nom chairs (those are specifically governance/nom committee chairs) had median support of 94.1%Pay chairs had 96.9% supportMM2The Boardroom Buy-InJPMorgan built a pipeline of female CEO candidates that was the envy of Wall Street. How did it fall apart? Are you IN or OUT on this board to find a successor to Dimon?IN or OUT: Nom chair: Gini Rometty (2020)Massively connected - highest betweenness, 82% connected to other directors (highest on board)Ex IBM CEO (retired 2020), IBM lifer (since 1981), Council on Foreign Relations, Business RoundtableCEOs replaced: herself? With Arvind Krishna, who was at IBM for more than 30 yearsIN or OUT: Michele Buck (2025)Newly appointed, ex CEO of Hershey, Hershey for 20 years and Kraft/Nabisco for 17 years prior (two companies, all food), board of NY LifeCEOs replaced: zero (dictatorship at Hershey)IN or OUT: Stephen Burke (2004)Lead Director! 16% influence, 22 year tenureComcast since 1998, Disney/ABC 1986, director at Berkshire HathawayCEOs replaced: zero (dictatorship at NBC/Comcast)IN or OUT: Alex Gorsky (2022)Ex CEO of J&J, Boards of Apple, IBM (!), ex Business RoundtableCEOs replaced: Tim Cook, himself, Gini Rometty (!)Jensen Huang's iconic leather jacket is going up for auction. Are you IN or OUT on “iconic” founder clothes?IN or OUT: Steve Jobs' turtleneck INEnabled by Arthur LevinsonIN or OUT: Zuck hoodie INEnabled by Peter Thiel, Marc AndreessenIN or OUT: Bill Gates' glasses OUTIN or OUT: Elizabeth Holmes' turtleneck OUTIN or OUT: Jack Dorsey's “love” hat OUTIN or OUT: Musk's chainsaw INSub question: if a board member has been on the board as long as the founder, are they iconic?Tench Coxe - 32 years on Nvidia board, only board he's on, buddies with JensenHarvey Jones - 32 years on Nvidia board, only board he's on, buddies with JensenBrooke Seawell (28 years) and Mark Stevens (17 years) - both were with Jensen when Nvidia just made dopey video cards for better video games

Uncovered by a hacker, the latest "Secret Society" has been exposed.  Led by Peter Theil and others, it has been in operation for 6 years. What is it all about? What do they do? Who are they and how does it affect the rest of us?  We have our thoughts on all of it.Email us at: downtherh@protonmail.com

Tech shapes our world, and Stanford University is Silicon Valley's training ground. But what really goes on in the place that gave us Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Peter Thiel – the richest university in human history? As a student reporter, Stanford undergraduate Theo Baker's work forced Stanford's president to resign. Now his new book How To Rule The World exposes the intense and amoral culture of a place where talent fights for access to untold funds; oligarchs mine the world's sharpest young minds for talent; and ethical concerns dissolve in the light of money.Seth Thévoz talks to Theo Baker about Stanford's ruthless mindset, why most venture capitalists are actually very bad at their jobs, and what happens when you give teenagers money to burn and no responsibilities. • Buy How To Rule The World: An Education in Power at Stanford University through our affiliate bookshop and you'll help fund the podcast by earning us a small commission for every sale. Bookshop.org's fees help support independent bookshops too.• Special offer! Get 20% off any vehicle history check at carVertical.com/TheBunker . www.patreon.com/bunkercast Written and presented by Seth Thévoz. Produced by James Liddell. Audio production: Tom Taylor. Music by Kenny Dickinson. Artwork by James Parrett. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. THE BUNKER is a Podmasters Production.www.podmasters.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What if one of the most powerful companies on Earth operates largely outside the public spotlight? While names like Google, Apple, and Microsoft dominate headlines, another technology company has quietly become deeply embedded within military operations, intelligence agencies, law enforcement, healthcare, finance, and governments around the world. That company is Palantir Technologies.In Part One of this special investigative series, On the Record examines the origins of Palantir and the extraordinary rise of a company founded in the aftermath of 9/11 with a mission to solve one of America's greatest intelligence failures: connecting massive amounts of fragmented information before disaster strikes again.Host Christian Briggs traces Palantir's story from its founding by Peter Thiel, Alex Karp, Joe Lonsdale, Stephen Cohen, and Nathan Gettings to its early backing by In-Q-Tel, the venture capital organization created to identify technologies of interest to the U.S. intelligence community. Along the way, the episode explores how PayPal's fraud-detection technology evolved into sophisticated software capable of integrating data across military, intelligence, and government systems.The episode also examines Palantir's flagship platforms—including Gotham, Foundry, Apollo, and its Artificial Intelligence Platform—and how they are used by defense organizations, government agencies, healthcare providers, manufacturers, and major corporations to analyze vast amounts of information. Christian also explores the company's expanding role in modern warfare, its high-profile government contracts, and CEO Alex Karp's unusually candid comments about Palantir's role in supporting military operations.But Palantir's growth has not come without controversy. The documentary investigates the lawsuits, privacy concerns, immigration-enforcement debates, healthcare controversies, congressional scrutiny, and civil-liberties criticisms that have followed the company as its influence has expanded. Viewers will hear both the concerns raised by critics and Palantir's own responses, providing a detailed look at one of the most debated technology companies of the twenty-first century.Part One lays the foundation for an even larger story. In Part Two, Christian follows Palantir's expanding global footprint, exploring digital identity initiatives, biometric verification, artificial intelligence, government data integration, automatic license plate reader networks, and the broader debate over how rapidly advancing technology may reshape the relationship between governments, institutions, and citizens in the years ahead.

On today's episode of the Occult Symbolism and Pop Culture with Isaac Weishaupt podcast we're joined by special guest Andrew from 6G Agenda Podcast! He's going to break down ExposureGate- a nexus that connects dots from the political landscape to Epstein and Trump to Zionists, Peter Thiel, Joe Rogan, Curtis Yarvin, the JQ Movement, Steve Bannon and more! We'll get into strange links of Michael Aquino and the Zodiac Killer, HP Lovecraft, Jack Parsons BABALON Working and much more!Links:Follow 6G Agenda everywhere:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@6gagendaSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/65gsXCokZNOvvLCGklEd23?si=Veh5jOGVSVOpCCzz0_lRIgFREE book, social medias, appearances & more: https://allmylinks.com/isaacw  SUPPORTER FEEDS get bonus content AND go commercial free + other perks:*PATREON.com/IlluminatiWatcher : ad free, HUNDREDS of bonus shows, early access AND TWO OF MY BOOKS! (The Dark Path and Kubrick's Code); you can join the conversations with hundreds of other show supporters here: Patreon.com/IlluminatiWatcher (*Patreon is also NOW enabled to connect with Spotify! https://rb.gy/hcq13)*VIP SECTION: Due to the threat of censorship, I set up a Patreon-type system through MY OWN website! IIt's even setup the same: FREE ebooks, Kubrick's Code video! Sign up at: https://illuminatiwatcher.com/members-section/*APPLE PREMIUM: If you're on the Apple Podcasts app- just click the Premium button and you're in! NO more ads, Early Access, EVERY BONUS EPISODE WANT MORE PODCASTS?... Check out my UNCENSORED show with my wife, Breaking Social Norms where we discuss conspiracies, politics, relationships and more!: https://breakingsocialnorms.com/Merch, MushroominatiWatcher Coffee, shirts, signed books: https://occultsymbolism.com/Isaac's Link Tree with links to EVERYTHING: https://allmylinks.com/isaacw *STATEMENT: This show is full of Isaac's useless opinions and presented for entertainment purposes. Audio clips used in Fair Use and taken from YouTube videos. 

Patrick Bet-David and the Home Team break down America's 250th birthday, Trump's calls with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky, Iran's funeral for Ayatollah Khamenei and what comes next, Peter Thiel's explosive comments about Pope Leo and AI, plus the biggest business, political and cultural stories shaping America.———

Dear Elon,Congratulations on your initial public offering of SPCX.Google's AI says, “The blockbuster debut briefly made Elon Musk the world's first trillionaire on paper.”The words “briefly” and “on paper” dim the dazzling brightness of the word “trillionaire” a little, but still, it's a pretty big deal.I'm sure that Errol and Maye are super-proud.You've come a long way since you started Zip2 with your brother, Kimball, in 1995.Who would have ever thought that a company that created online city guides for newspapers would sell for $307 million after just 3 and 1/2 years in business?Your 7% was only worth $22 million, but still, that's a lot of pocket money for a 27-year-old boy.Your decision to partner up with Ed Ho, Harris Fricker, and Christopher Payne to create “X,” and then merge with your biggest competitor so that all of you could survive the bursting of the dotcom bubble, well, that was another brilliant move.It worked out well for Max Levchin and Peter Thiel, too. You and Thiel and Ho, Fricker, Payne and Max created Paypal at exactly the right time.Well done, all of you!But of all your accomplishments, the one that impresses me the most is the frictionless website that you built to sell cars.Every Tesla owner that I have ever met has admitted to being marveled by how easy it was to buy a new Tesla. Five minutes online and $500 on a credit card leaves the customer sitting there, mildly stunned, asking themselves. “Did I really just buy a car? Can it really be that easy?”Elon, when people marvel at something, the thing that marvels them can rightfully be called marvelous.Elon, your Tesla website is marvelous.And the car is marvelous.Except for one thing. Can we talk about that one thing for a moment?Shortly after my wife Pennie bought her Tesla, I saw that we had a sheet rock screw embedded in the center of the tread in the right rear tire.Pennie said, “No problem, Tire Service is one of the things that my Tesla app says they can do right in our driveway.”So she pulled out her phone and quickly ordered and paid for Tire Service.When the tire guy showed up he said, “Yep. That's definitely a sheet rock screw and it's definitely an easy fix, but I can only do tire rotations. Take this to the Tesla service center and I'm sure they will do it for free.”When Pennie got back from the service center, she said that your service manager told her that the tire could not be fixed because it had a scuff on the sidewall, so he sold her a $400 new tire.Obviously, I should have gone with her.Was she cheated out of $400? Yes. In my opinion, she was cheated out of four hundred dollars.Have we been cheated by other people for more money than that? Yes.Life goes on.Elon, you and I both know that no car on earth – not even your Tesla – is equipped with onboard sensors that can monitor the depth of the tire tread on a tire. So I can only assume that this annoying “tire tread” warning light that has been front-and-center on our dash ever since she visited your service center was most likely put there by the same aggressive salesman who already sold my wife a tire that she did not need. I'm sure you can understand why I will never visit another Tesla service center.Can we resolve this like honorable men?Elon, I will Venmo you another $400 if you will tell your service manager to press the button that will make the annoying “tire tread warning” light disappear from the dash of my wife's car.You can keep the tire. I don't need it, just like I didn't need the first one. But I really do need that annoying dash light to go away.I will even Paypal you the $400 if you prefer.Again, congratulations on briefly becoming the world's first “on paper” trillionaire.– Roy H. Williams

JOIN PATREON FOR EARLY UNCENSORED EPISODE RELEASES: https://www.patreon.com/JulianDorey CLIPPERS DISCORD: https://discord.gg/8QmWEKJ3BT FOLLOW JULIAN DOREY IG: https://www.instagram.com/julianddorey/ X: https://x.com/juliandorey FOLLOW JOEY DEEF IG: https://www.instagram.com/joeydeef/ X: https://x.com/TokeMalone JULIAN YT CHANNELS - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Clips YT: https://www.youtube.com/@juliandoreyclips - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Daily YT: https://www.youtube.com/@JulianDoreyDaily - SUBSCRIBE to Best of JDP: https://www.youtube.com/@bestofJDP ****TIMESTAMPS**** 0:00 - Deef's fingers in danger 1:58 - Today's investigation 3:33 - Julian expands upon last week's Jay Clayton findings 7:50 - Apollo Lawyer Andrew Levander's Epstein Relationship 14:13 - Epstein Bounty Hunter & Ponzi Scheming Timeline 16:46 - The Drysdale Affair 21:38 - Epstein Client's Lost Money from Drysdale Affair 22:20 - Andrew Levanders SHADY clients 27:10 - Iran Contra & Al-Yamama Arms Deals in same era 28:35 - NEW Story on Epstein's “Prison” Office 34:10 - Epstein's Lawyer LIED to court and it was ignored 37:34 - Epstein's Office Incredible Amenities & Perks 39:55 - Epstein's favorite book & “it's been a great ride, America” 43:04 - Epstein & Ehud Barak's Israeli Mercenaries in Africa Story 50:06 - Julian left Douglas Rushkoff SPEECHLESS over Billionaire Bunker Seekers (STORY) 53:54 - Peter Thiel's latest “1984” Global Takeover Plan 57:50 - Thiel's New Product is only made for Rich People, “Anonymous Sources” arguments 59:53 - Thiel's “AI Tribunal”-Run Media Hellscape 1:01:06 - Thiel's “Objection” Product in action…on behalf of THE SACKLER FAMILY 1:05:14 - Peter Thiel's Weird Hatchet Man, Aron D'Souza 1:10:58 - Julian UNLOADS on Thiel's future media hellscape 1:13:40 - 250 years ago, something very special happened 1:15:56 - The critical moment we are in as a nation in 2026 1:18:22 - Ben Franklin's 4 WARNINGS to America 1:24:46 - George Washington's 3 WARNINGS to America 1:29:06 - BIDEN & Founding Fathers' System 1:30:22 - TRUMP & Founding Fathers System 1:34:07 - The Epstein Class 1:34:50 - How America has STRAYED from Founding Fathers' System 1:35:41 - Why, at 250 Years, America's Good has Outweighed Bad 1:36:31 - The Ultimate Question America now faces 1:38:10 - Happy July 4th! CREDITS: - Host, Editor & Producer: Julian Dorey - COO, Producer & Editor: Alessi Allaman - https://www.youtube.com/@UCyLKzv5fKxGmVQg3cMJJzyQ - In-Studio Producer: Joey Deef Julian Dorey Podcast Episode 444 - Julian Dorey Music by Artlist.io Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kara talks to Father Paolo Benanti, a Franciscan friar, theologian and AI ethics adviser to the Vatican, about why AI has become a central concern for the Catholic Church. They discuss Pope Leo XIV's encyclical on AI, the Church's role in shaping a more human-centered debate and why Benanti sees today's AI race as a question of power, democracy, belief and human dignity. Kara presses him on Silicon Valley's influence, Peter Thiel's views on the Antichrist and whether the Vatican can serve as a public square for global AI debate. Plus: can the Church help unite countries around shared global safeguards? Come see Kara live in DC. She is sitting down with Former Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo on July 16 at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Center, and you can be in the room. ⁠Register now⁠. Questions? Comments? Email us at on@voxmedia.com or find us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Threads, and Bluesky @onwithkaraswisher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of John Solomon Reports, host John Solomon dives into the significant developments surrounding the ongoing investigations into alleged weaponization against President Trump and his supporters. With heightened scrutiny on former CIA Director John Brennan, who has filed a lawsuit demanding the preservation of records, Solomon discusses the implications of this legal maneuver and what it might mean for future indictments.The episode also covers the potential path forward for the Save America Act amidst internal GOP tensions, as well as reports on Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego facing federal investigation for campaign finance violations. Additionally, tech billionaire Peter Thiel raises alarms about the increasing influence of Democratic socialists within the party, highlighting recent electoral outcomes in Colorado.Listeners will hear from Congressman Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, who shares insights on Congress's current agenda, including the Supreme Court's ruling on birthright citizenship and protections for women's sports. Brecheen also reflects on the intentions of the Founding Fathers as America approaches its 250th birthday.In the second segment, Mike Davis from the Article 3 Project joins to discuss the implications of recent court rulings and the future of President Trump's powers. The episode concludes with journalist Steve Gruber, who has ventured into songwriting, sharing his new patriotic anthem celebrating American unity as the nation nears its milestone anniversary.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Independent researcher Tonery Rose & political scientist & host of The American Exception Podcast, Aaron Good, return to Bad Faith to breakdown the story behind Peter Thiel's secret society, Dialog, and the various "conspiracies" that help to fill in the gaps in mainstream realpolitik analysis. But before I ask them to run through their favorite conspiracy theories, we run through the establishment meltdown over the Mamdani-slate's victory last week in New York from the ladies of The View, to James Carville. Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube for video of this episode. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod) and Instagram (@badfaithpod). Produced by Armand Aviram. Theme by Nick Thorburn (@nickfromislands).

The Founding of OpenAI. Guest Author: Keach Hagey. In this opening segment, Keach Hagey discusses the January 2016 founding of OpenAI as a nonprofit research lab. Key figures included co-founder Greg Brockman and chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, a renowned researcher whose recruitment from Google signaled the lab's potential. Backed by a billion-dollar commitment from Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Jessica Livingston, the project was designed as a safe, non-commercial counterweight to Google's DeepMind. Operating initially out of Brockman's apartment, the team aimed to achieve Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) for the benefit of humanity. The technical foundation relied heavily on GPUs—hardware originally designed for video games—which proved essential for training the deep learning neural networks necessary for their research. This era was characterized by an ambitious, "pirate" spirit funded through YC Research to explore radical ideas outside the profit motive. 1JANUARY 1931

Stanford, Loopt, and Y Combinator. Guest Author: Keach Hagey. Altman's career accelerated at Stanford, where he dropped out to co-found Loopt, a pioneering location-tracking startup. Although Loopt achieved visibility—including a famous appearance at an Apple event alongside Steve Jobs—it was financially a disappointment, selling for parts after the 2008 crisis. Following a period of global "backpacking" and self-reflection, Altman discovered his "superpower" in investing, mentored by Peter Thiel. By 2014, he became the president of Y Combinator, overseeing massive successes like Airbnb and Stripe. Influenced by a visit to SpaceX, Altman adopted Elon Musk's "missionary" approach, viewing startups as world-changing missions rather than mere businesses. During this time, he also championed radical social concepts like Georgism and Universal Basic Income (UBI), writing extensively on how mass AI equity could eventually be shared to restructure society. 3JANUARY 1941