Hey! Thanks for looking into the MAD Act, but I would push back on your framing (I know how it looks, totally fair to think it’s out of bounds) but I think you are mischaracterizing the material, perhaps intentionally.
Folks in government do take me seriously. I have been asked to present internally to gov departments in both Canada and the U.S.. Just last year, I was invited to present internally on declassification at NARA alongside reps from the Applied Research Laboratory for Intelligence and Security as well as a folks from project CoNGA from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. If you spend sufficient time looking through declassified records as I do, it becomes very normalized to suggest certain formal inquiries should take place. I think your impression comes from a lack of understanding our history, but if you take a cursory glance at these issues only, I can understand the impression. It could be totally fruitless inquiries, but such inquiries serve to dispel misinformation held by other stakeholders as well.
I have been a solid and professional researcher for about 8 years, and was early on things like Epstein, COVID being a potential lab leak, etc., when folks found these topics to be unreasonable. I think my background in exploring internet commentary trends at scale coupled with the systematic logical deconstruction of such claims for the purpose of adjudicating evidence simply puts me ahead of the curve on some topics, sometimes—and I think that’s the case here. I am not asserting anything on these topics, merely calling for an inquiry and verification.
In general, these topics are validated and important to other audiences. I suggest folks read the actual articles. Also your note about “AI to constantly surveil all government officials” is a completely inaccurate characterization, hence my assumption that this may have been intentionally mischaracterizing.
All this to say, @orthonormal, I think your conclusion is incorrect. Given the history of how folks in the DoD, DARPA, IARPA, NARA, ISOO, the Stimson Center, and the CSPS/EFPC have taken me quite seriously over the years, I think the Gang of Eight will as well.
But thank you for giving me the opportunity to refine how I would respond to such critiques, since my first reply was suboptimal to be sure.
Your frame is really strong. I agree that Jamie is not a rationalist. I think that those beliefs are not that out there in comparison to major religions, mainstream political beliefs, etc. They are also not completely unhinged: looking at the Charlie Kirk link, she is calling for a more thorough investigation given that TPUSA was a major organization, and sure, looking at Israel’s influence.
Ultimately I like her personally and my sense is that allying with her would be a good idea since I don’t think you can get a rationalist candidate to run/win
Her MAD Act includes things like “investigating the Charlie Kirk assassination” (suggesting a link to Israel), checking whether Ghislaine Maxwell is really in jail or replaced with a fake (suggesting a link to Israel), and using AI to constantly surveil all government officials for the sake of accountability.
Having a conspiracy theorist shout about AI risks in the House would backfire massively for any hopes of Congress taking those risks seriously.
Hey! Thanks for looking into the MAD Act, but I would push back on your framing (I know how it looks, totally fair to think it’s out of bounds) but I think you are mischaracterizing the material, perhaps intentionally.
Folks in government do take me seriously. I have been asked to present internally to gov departments in both Canada and the U.S.. Just last year, I was invited to present internally on declassification at NARA alongside reps from the Applied Research Laboratory for Intelligence and Security as well as a folks from project CoNGA from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. If you spend sufficient time looking through declassified records as I do, it becomes very normalized to suggest certain formal inquiries should take place. I think your impression comes from a lack of understanding our history, but if you take a cursory glance at these issues only, I can understand the impression. It could be totally fruitless inquiries, but such inquiries serve to dispel misinformation held by other stakeholders as well.
I have been a solid and professional researcher for about 8 years, and was early on things like Epstein, COVID being a potential lab leak, etc., when folks found these topics to be unreasonable. I think my background in exploring internet commentary trends at scale coupled with the systematic logical deconstruction of such claims for the purpose of adjudicating evidence simply puts me ahead of the curve on some topics, sometimes—and I think that’s the case here. I am not asserting anything on these topics, merely calling for an inquiry and verification.
In general, these topics are validated and important to other audiences. I suggest folks read the actual articles. Also your note about “AI to constantly surveil all government officials” is a completely inaccurate characterization, hence my assumption that this may have been intentionally mischaracterizing.
All this to say, @orthonormal, I think your conclusion is incorrect. Given the history of how folks in the DoD, DARPA, IARPA, NARA, ISOO, the Stimson Center, and the CSPS/EFPC have taken me quite seriously over the years, I think the Gang of Eight will as well.
But thank you for giving me the opportunity to refine how I would respond to such critiques, since my first reply was suboptimal to be sure.
Your frame is really strong. I agree that Jamie is not a rationalist. I think that those beliefs are not that out there in comparison to major religions, mainstream political beliefs, etc. They are also not completely unhinged: looking at the Charlie Kirk link, she is calling for a more thorough investigation given that TPUSA was a major organization, and sure, looking at Israel’s influence.
Ultimately I like her personally and my sense is that allying with her would be a good idea since I don’t think you can get a rationalist candidate to run/win