SHANNON BREAM: Dario Amodei worries about the takeover of the internet by these AI agents. But he talks about China: If we greatly restrain our AI capabilities in the belief China will do the same, and then China defects, A.I. could be so powerful that such a defection could lead to their geopolitical dominance.” How do you measure these imbalances? MOLLIE HEMINGWAY: First of all, Dario Amodei runs an AI company, but if he really believes these things, he has complete control. SHANNON BREAM: That is what David Sacks, Just do it, you run the company, do it. MOLLIE HEMINGWAY: It is an issue of our common Washington, D.C. People seek regulatory capture. You’ve made it to the top of the heap, and you want to keep everybody else out by regulating so the smaller competition companies cannot rise. So this is particularly concerning for this particular issue because these six or seven top AI oligarchs are all massively aligned with the Democratic Party, the left. They want to make sure they have control for a post-Trump environment, so they can engage in ongoing censorship and control, and keep anybody else out for decades to come. So it is totally legitimate to be concerned about AI. I myself am as well. But when you see a massive op like this going on, you have to wonder about precisely the motivation. SHANNON BREAM: And David Sacks says, “Stop impugning the motivation displayed on this. If it is purely altruistic, but you face a massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack.” That is the sum of what Mollie is talking about. But without regulation, is it to protect the companies, or is it to protect them and what they’ve put together as a large group? <\/p><\/blockquote>\n