Milei’s road from serfdom Western media struggles to categorize Argentina’s new President Javier Milei. Some call him far right; others anarcho-capitalist, right-wing populist, ultraconservative. None seem correct: He’s not a Trump-esque demagogue, nor is he an authoritarian. The pseudonymous neoliberal writer Basile Toumái traces Milei’s ideological lineage: He is a descendent of the school of Austro-Libertarianism, and in particular of Murray Rothbard. Rothbard, like Friedrich Hayek, placed individual sovereignty above all, and rejected state intervention, believing that freedom decreases as taxation increases. Being a Rothbardian is “a bit like being a Marxist, but inverted,” says Toumái, espousing “both a theory of economics and of social philosophy.” Like Marxists, Rothbardians are prone to factionalism and in-fighting; and like Marxism, Rothbardism involves having “the strongest possible opinion on the value of capitalism,” although while Marx was staunchly anti-capitalist, Rothbard was staunchly pro: He had “a moralised notion of ‘the free market’ that can do no wrong.” Risks and benefits How will we know when to worry about artificial intelligence? The debate has already broken down somewhat, with distinct camps all broadly accusing the others of vague badness: “AI risk” worriers think AI could kill everyone, “AI ethics” people think it’s already exacerbating societal inequalities, and “techno-optimists” think all technological progress is good. But it may not be that long until real, powerful, artificial general intelligence arrives, and these debates stop being academic. On his personal Substack, AI Policy Perspectives, Google DeepMind’s Séb Krier has begun a seven-part series on what we ought to focus on. Part one discusses what it means for a capability to be concerning. Lots of AI abilities, he notes, can be put to both good and bad uses: For instance, an AI that is superhuman at “persuading” might sound worrying, but an AI therapist that couldn’t persuade you to change your thought patterns would be of little help. “A dangerous/not dangerous binary alone is not a particularly helpful frame,” Krier says. I hope this email finds you well Caroline Crampton, the editor-in-chief of The Browser, used to be one of those people who thought they were good at email. That is, she cleared her inbox daily; she filed different emails into neat little subfolders; she replied to each incoming email within 24 hours. When others complained about “the never-ending time-suck that was their own inbox, I felt baffled, or slightly smug”: Why not just, you know, answer it? There was a simple explanation: “It turns out that I just wasn’t receiving very much email.” That has now changed, and Inbox Zero is a thing of the past. (Flagship’s Tom is reminded of another observation, by a former colleague of Crampton’s, that Ozempic made her realize that thin people really can “eat whatever they want” because they actually don’t want to eat very much.) There is something strange about email etiquette, she says, quoting another writer: “Someone at any time, any place, any mental state can send you a message, and now you’re the asshole if you don’t respond to it.” |