A single AI-powered portal for U.S. government services is coming. Trump signed an executive order ordering every federal agency to integrate with America(dot)gov.

Folks US is still a democratic constitutional Republic. In the end it is always : are you better off now than before the last election. Period. That is all the macro economics you need.

Fascinating. Chief Economist at Apollo: agents could cause a bank run by sweeping household cash into accounts paying 3-5% instead of the 0.1% national average, causing banks to lose a large share of their cheap deposits.

Trump is banning students majoring in degrees that don’t make enough money from taking out college loans. Degrees for social work, art, religious studies, teaching aides, and music will be hit the hardest. trib.al/NmmAzhf

For those in the know: the strategies described are basically the same as what Treasury officials warned about in July so box-spread ETFs, no-distribution ETFs, swaps, identified straddles, etc

absolutely fucking insane if true.. google gemini 4 pro apparently beats astra and opus 5.5 by a ridiculous margin. what the fuck has google been cooking!

Introducing @Supertake, a new platform that transforms your unique takes on the world into real, shareable investment portfolios using frontier AI and trading agents. Supertake makes it easy for anyone to invest in their ideas, even if they know nothing about investing. 1/

Given the rising cost of living in the US, have people thought about outsourcing say resource and labor-intensive production of goods to countries where those goods could be produced cheaper?

The Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of EAs I've been an Effective Altruist for over 10 years now. Watching EAs repeatedly faceplant in public has been tough. I still agree with the philosophy of Effective Altruism—my main problem with EA is not the ideas, but the people. Not the altruism, but the effectiveness. When I first discovered Effective Altruism at 23, it was a nascent movement of philosophers and extremely online people shaping a new moral discourse. Their conversations were invigorating—ideas that were not being explored anywhere else. These ideas were grounded in one central insight: that most people were not thinking deeply enough about how to do good. Later in my career, I became a venture capitalist, investing in early stage tech founders. I imagined I'd be backing a lot of EAs out of an affinity for the movement. But that never happened. I realized what many people eventually realize: most EA types suck at actually doing things. EA has since become vilified in tech circles, likened to Communism, Luddism, Randianism, and a cover for Neoliberal technocracy. EA has become so embroiled in this tech new culture war that it's become impossible to speak across the aisle to its detractors. So let me be clear: when I say I agree with EA, I mean the philosophy. Not the organizations, not the figureheads—the ideas. Since EA was conscripted into this new culture war, most people no longer connect Effective Altruism with its actual tenets. The caricature is that EA is all about degrowth, technological deceleration, or shrill safetyism. The clearest definition of EA is laid out on its Wikipedia page. Since I know you won't read it, the philosophy of Effective Altruism boils down to five principles: * Impartiality: the well-being of everyone counts equally * Cause neutrality: no altruistic cause is intrinsically better than any other * Marginal analysis: there are big differences in the marginal impact of some interventions over others * Counterfactual reasoning: if it would've happened anyway, you didn't actually do anything of moral consequence * Demandingness: being truly moral demands more than society normally expects from you That's EA. That's what I agree with. If you agree with this, you also agree with EA. But then there's the core "EA community." This core is about 7,000 people, mostly in the SF Bay Area and OxBridge. (There are probably >50,000 people who are EAs, but they are not part of this core.) When commentators refer to EAs, they are picturing this core group. These people are known for their neurotic scruples. They valorize obsessive epistemological hygiene, long self-critical blog posts, and endless anxious introspection for audiences of purely other EA types. A significant portion of this core community is on the autistic spectrum. I think this subculture is unhealthy and ultimately undermines its own goals. I'm not one of these people. I mean, I am in that I've lived in the Bay Area, met many core EA types, and I have a few treasured friends who I met through the early days of EA. But I do not primarily affiliate with "EA types." I've been donating a significant portion of my income since 2015, but I don't talk about it incessantly. I don't demand anyone in my company do the same. I don't accuse other people of not being effective in their donations. I do what I do because I became convinced that with all the privileges I've had, that this is the right way to live my life. When critics liken Effective Altruism to a modern cult of Pythagoras, what they miss is that most actual EAs are not polyamorous programmers conspiring to ban open source LLMs. Most EAs are ordinary professionals supporting diverse causes with their donations—global health, animal welfare charities, politics, AI, and bio risk research. The core "EA types" are, in absolute terms, a small number of people. But my main problem with the "core EA" group is not that they are ill-intentioned or even misguided. My problem with them is that they are incompetent. Why are they incompetent? It's puzzling. 10 years ago, the EA community looked like an incredibly bright group of young, energetic do-gooders. I was sure that EAs would end up having a big positive impact on the world. Enter SBF. SBF is now painted as the apotheosis of EA—the quintessential nerd robbing his customers to donate more bednets. And if that's what happened, that would indeed be a chilling morality tale. But after learning the truth of what really happened at FTX, what sticks out is not SBF's calculating coldness, but rather his stunning incompetence. This was not a Robin Hood stealing from his customers to give to EA charities—he gave less than 1% of his purported wealth to any charities at all. So what did he do with all the money he was stealing? He lost it all gambling on crypto shitcoins! He ran an exchange, but he couldn't even keep his own corporate books straight! He thought older people were idiots so he hired a bunch of kids to run his business and fed them stimulants! Even after his company was underwater, he was investing in startups and donating to politicians! What's striking about FTX is not that SBF was a ruthless utilitarian—what's striking is how grossly incompetent he was at running a real business. Imagine what damage SBF's fraud might have wrought if he had the ability to keep any of it going. EA should revere competence, because competence is a prerequisite for effectiveness. Take the OpenAI mutiny (of which details are still murky, but we now have the rough picture). What's the common thread between SBF and the OpenAI mutiny? It's not that they were both single-mindedly optimizing for altruistic outcomes. Rather, what they share is that they were both incompetent. They didn't understand business. They didn't understand how to work with people or navigate politics. They were unable to build stable coalitions. Squirreling away to argue on forums about how everyone else is foolishly misallocating resources is not good preparation on how to change the world. If you are an EA, my advice: don't only surround yourself with other EAs. Learn the core philosophy—the ideas are good and directionally correct! But don't linger too long. Effectiveness comes from being able to move through the world, communicate effectively, and bridge between domains. Develop competence! It occurs to me—my frustration must be similar to how epidemiologists felt during COVID. Epidemiology is correct. As a field, they're the only people who have spent their lives understanding the spread of diseases. So when shit went down and the world looked around and said—hey you, you seem to know about pandemics, you know how to drive this thing? Epidemiology took the keys and then promptly crashed the car. That's how I feel about EA. I don't see EA as a utopian project. No single philosophy can answer every question. EA is rather a marginalist project—it extends morality a little bit farther forward, but the details are up to the rest of us to fill in. EA has an important place in the world. Most people could still stand to be a little more EA in their lives. But if the world ever throws EA the keys, we should look around and ask if anyone else knows how to drive. @slatestarcodex @sapinker @jeremyphoward @willmacaskill

In today's version of "Doomerism Debunked" we're looking at the idea of an agentic bank run and why it's overstated at best and wrong at worst. The argument goes like this. AI agents will sweep household cash out of 0.1% checking accounts and into 4% high yield savings accounts, banks will lose the cheap deposits they use to make loans, and the whole system gets into trouble. But think about where that money actually goes. When cash moves from a checking account at Bank A to a savings account at Bank B, Bank A's deposits fall and Bank B's deposits rise by the same amount. Total deposits in the banking system don't change. And most of the fintechs in the chart are either banks themselves or sweep your cash into partner banks. The money never leaves the system. It just changes addresses. It's also worth remembering that banks don't lend out deposits. Loans create deposits. Banks need deposits to settle payments and hold reserves, and if they lose cheap ones they can replace them with more expensive ones. That's a real cost, but it's a cost, not a collapse. Deposits really leave the banking system mainly through a few channels, such as physical cash withdrawals, payments to the Treasury (which comes back when spent), or money that ends up at the Fed's reverse repo facility. A bot moving your savings to a better rate isn't one of them. Now, the stronger version of this argument deserves a fair hearing. SVB was a run from one bank to other banks, and it still killed the bank. If AI agents can move uninsured deposits in hours instead of days, individual bank runs could happen faster than they used to. And sticky, low rate deposits have always been part of how banks manage interest rate risk. If that stickiness goes away, weaker banks have to manage their balance sheets more carefully. That's a legitimate risk for specific banks with bad balance sheets. It is not a system-wide run. The more likely outcome is that banks have to pay savers closer to market rates and their net interest margins get squeezed. That's bad for bank shareholders. It's pretty good for everyone holding cash. So yes, agentic banking will probably change the economics of deposits. But calling it a bank run confuses a repricing of bank funding with a panic driven collapse of the system. Those are very different animals.

David Pagnotta: We should get word on which multiple free agents have finally found new homes over the next few days. The likes of Michael Bunting, Patrik Laine, Carson Soucy (PTO in Columbus), Vladimir Tarasenko and Philipp Kurashev are evaluating options - Fourth Period (9/27)

Even though there’s still much more work to do, specifically in central Gaza, I love the fact that you can clearly see the vengeance of Israel from space. To anyone who doesn’t understand the message here: Never, under any circumstances, fuck with 21st century Jews.

I was just joking here ofc. If Amazon can prevent your AI agents from shopping on its site, banks are definitely going to block agents from accessing your funds much less withdrawing large sums from your account and sending to a different bank with higher interest rates. AI will try to remove some frictions, but “frictions” will surely fight back like their livelihoods are on the line. Businesses certainly don’t have to accept working with agents as is.

I can't believe there isn't a true interest graph. There's no single place to find everyone's favorite books, movies, artists—or any people or organizations they're fans of. Some sample features this could have: - Find other fans - Reward people for discovering things early - The creator could get email access to their fans or even a patron network directly from them. Someone should build this.

Universal Basic Income but in the form of agents doing the jobs employees are being paid for and not doing themselves.

🚨EXCLUSIVE: Some early Anthropic employees are considering buying remote land in the U.S. to relocate to if AI goes seriously wrong. Employees also trade doomsday scenarios and preparation plans in a private Slack, while Anthropic workers have their own office space inside Berkeley’s Constellation AI-safety community. The wider safety scene has discussed iodine pills, remote islands and electromagnetically shielded desert bunkers. Anthropic employees adopted a fitting motto: “Things will never be chill again.”

Shockingly the PR strategy of "CEO making billions from AI now says it may kill you" isn't going over well with the American public. Regardless of what you think about whether we need to slow down - this messaging is pretty rough. (top IG comments on the Dario interview)