If you’re a subscriber to Wired.com I want to suggest that you read this piece: Why the Postpandemic Tech Bust Sent Billionaires to Trump.

It’s interesting enough that I’d suggest it would be worth whatever one month free or first month for a buck offers they might have to sign up. (Of course, I’m all for subscribing to every publication. Some of you will decide to keep it long term.) And if you can’t, it’s actually an excerpt from a book which, I think, is out today, titled: Against Tech Oligarchy: Worker Resistance in the World’s Most Powerful Industry.

The piece published in Wired doesn’t cover any terribly surprising new ground for people who’ve followed this story closely. But it does add new layers of detail and a more coherent narrative. In so many words the pandemic created a situation in which both the Democrats and Big Tech’s own employees turned against the owner founders. And that sent the owner founders running toward the right and Donald Trump. For a variety of reasons the tech giants went on a hiring spree during the pandemic — cheap money, Zoom life, work from home, everything bought online and delivered to your home. But then they got spooked and the markets didn’t like it. They’d overextended themselves and they decided that the problem was that they weren’t efficient enough and that their employees were lazy. The authors note a key point that layoffs went differently in tech than in traditional manufacturing, where layoffs have a direct impact on revenues, even if they may make good profit and loss sense. In tech, a lot of your value is already banked in the code. Layoffs probably won’t catch up with you for a while.

I wanted to share a few more thoughts with you about this roiling public debate about AI and the dangers of rogue, uncontrollable “agents.”

I start with the quite predictable conclusion that a lot of the contending theories we were talking about are true at the same time, at least to some degree. It is impossible not to see how a controlled deceleration of AI development serves financial purposes for the frontier AI labs. A regulatory pause sort of freezes their current lead in place, at least to a degree. It also allows them to focus on the massive returns of what we might call “meh” AI/LLMs while deprioritizing the kind of cutting edge research that costs a lot, has various risks and doesn’t have clear returns within the time horizon of your IPO. (The two top U.S. “frontier” labs are in their final preparations for going public.) It has also become increasingly clear to me that significant chunks of the AI world are in the thrall of a self-styled “rationalist” subculture which spends an inordinate amount of time postulating future human extinction events — dressed up in a lot of “rationalist” language but about which no one really has any idea — and then devising often quite sinister strategies for averting these imagined futures. (AI was a big focus of theirs before the last few years, but they have several storylines about future extinction events in the distant future.) It is finally the case that a lot of the people sounding these alarms have little acquaintance with how the world works outside of the computing domain and speak on issues of intelligence, sentience and self-awareness while knowing little or nothing about the scientific fields where these topics have been studied for decades or even centuries.

Needless to say, none of these facts inspire a lot of confidence.

Conventional wisdom holds that a midterm election only fully comes into focus after Labor Day. That’s when a critical slice of the electorate starts focusing on the election and the choices before them. More or less in line with that, we’ve had a spray of polls out in the last few days showing the congressional generic ballot shifting decisively in Democrats’ favor. Looking only at generic ballots fielded entirely in September by pollsters the New York Times rates as trusted we have D+7, D+9, D+9 and D+11. If that trend or average is representative, it shows Democrats opening a big lead on this measure where the earlier average had been in the 5-7 point range. As Ron Brownstein notes here, history also tells us that in the final weeks of a campaign, this generic ballot measure will bend toward the president’s approval number. That appears to be happening. One of those, from the Times itself, was released today (D+9) with an accompanying write-up which, simply because it’s the Times, will probably draw attention to this trend even though the Times poll is only one of several.

Polls and trends can of course be wrong. But these numbers are extremely bad for the GOP, and if anything in this ballpark is accurate Republicans will likely lose the Senate as well as the House. Indeed, the variability in possible outcomes may be even higher in the Senate since it’s not amenable to gerrymandering. Even the Times, usually eager to find possible downsides for Democrats, frames their poll with declarative statements like this: “Voters see Republicans broadly as more extreme, more elitist and more corrupt than Democrats, according to the poll. And while voters continue to have doubts about both parties, they aligned more with the Democratic Party on both cultural and economic matters than the Republican Party in the survey.”

ICYMI, TPM’s new reporter Chris Mathias just published a new investigation revealing that the Republican nominee for a seat in the Florida House of Representatives marched alongside neo-Nazis at the deadly 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Chris joined TPM publisher Joe Ragazzo on YouTube live this afternoon to talk about his piece, the modern GOP’s “never punch right attitude,” and “the screaming emergency” of having Charlottesville marchers take elected office.

Today is also Chris’ first official day on staff! So please follow him on Bluesky and X and welcome him to the TPM community.

In a brief order, the Supreme Court appears to have shut down the Trump White House’s plan to take over and drastically complicate voting by mail for the November midterms. Only the two most corrupt Justices, Alito and Thomas, dissented from the opinion. Kavanaugh meanwhile noted that a major part of his reasoning wasn’t so much the merits but how little time there is before the midterms and the difficulty of implementing any changes so quickly.

For the sake of clarity, this is not a final ruling but rather the Court declining to allow the plan to move forward while the case itself is being decided. Effectively, however, that would appear to settle the matter for the November midterm.

Just my own take on this: I suspect there might be a majority or at least more than two votes to okay a plan like this. The Court is simply that corrupt and heedless of the constitution. But this implementation was likely to create massive election chaos, delays, perhaps even the impossibility of holding an election in states which vote entirely by mail. I suspect the Justices did not want to own that outcome.

Our reporter Kate Riga has the whole story here.

As you’ve likely seen, a strange and perhaps positive chain of events unfolded over the weekend in the world of AI and what we might call human extinction discourse. Dario Amodei, CEO and cofounder of Anthropic, posted an essay calling for a global slow-down in AI development to allow more time to prioritize safety and what the industry calls “alignment” and pledging that Anthropic would take a series of steps in that direction unilaterally. Somewhat surprisingly, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and archvillain Elon Musk stepped forward and said they agreed and appeared to agree to join Anthropic in the proposed slowdown.

Regardless of what one thinks of AI and its possible dangers — existential or otherwise — it’s hard not to see this as at least a somewhat good development. And I say that with full cognizance of the various arguments about financial overextension or heading off sterner regulation that may make these moves self-interested. (AI critic Gary Marcus gives it a qualified endorsement along with a good cross-section of responses.) But I wanted to step back for a moment and talk more generally about the question of “externalities” which has always been the problem lurking in the background of Big Tech’s road to national and global domination.

Our publisher Joe Ragazzo is going to be hosting biweekly YouTube lives with members of our team, on Tuesdays and Fridays. Join him at 1 p.m. ET today for a conversation with editor Nicole LaFond and reporter Kate Riga on the 25th anniversary of 9/11; the start of the NFL season; President Trump’s bribe offer/proposal to give Americans $5,000 if Republicans win the midterms; and Vivek Ramaswamy’s widely-mocked batting cage campaign video.

We’ll see you then!

David Kurtz has a good run-down of the overnight Joe diGenova story in today’s Morning Memo. DiGenova went rogue, then resigned or got fired, then publicly went rogue (essentially claimed that Trump Main Justice wanted to bring evidence-less indictments) and then tried to sort of un-rogue, I guess so as not lose his seat on the Trump gravy/TV hit train. DiGenova is no innocent; he’s a GOP partisan knife-fighter going back to the early ’90s. He made the still-significant shift to team Trump basically at the first opportunity. And here we are.

We’re now flooded with articles about the threat of AI. Here’s another one from the Times op-ed page by a tech journalist, Stephen Witt, who’s written a history of Nvidia, the chip maker powering a lot of the AI boom. Witt describes a few possible approaches to legal intervention. Interestingly, he points to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX) as two legislators pitching new laws to get in control of the situation. Casar has a quote that captures it all and illustrates how absent “externalities” are to anything about how we regulate tech: “If the A.I. companies understood that their products have to be safe before they can advance, then they will make the kinds of investments that we need.” Of course, having two left-wing legislators from the party which isn’t even in power as the two guys on the case doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence that anything is going to happen any time soon.

Following up on my previous post, I want to point your attention to this post by Gary Marcus, a highly respected and knowledgable critic/skeptic of AI. You should read it just to get a range of views on this question. The gist is this. He points to two recent warnings. One is the one I describe below in the previous post. The other recently came from a leading mathematician named Terence Tao, who was recently interviewed by Matteo Wong in The Atlantic. Tao warns that the evolution and use of AI is creating a new dynamic in which AI is in the process of shutting down collaboration and information sharing in mathematics and, Tao suspects, soon in the sciences as well. (This part isn’t just asserted. It’s detailed and interesting.) That’s not human extinction, but it’s not great, to put it mildly.

Marcus then turns to the Coxon story. I’ll quote his overview reaction in full.

I happen to disagree with him around timing, and I would argue that Coxon is exaggerating what AI is likely to do anytime soon. But it is nonetheless overall a disconcerting (and plausible) firsthand perspective on the transparently self-indulgent and dangerous thought processes in two of the leading frontier labs

So too alarmist as to time horizons but not implausible and not something to laugh off, either.