I was with you most of the way, but feel your blind spot has reared itself again: profound naivete about the role of money and power in all of this.
Whether tech sector professionals are 50/50, 60/40, 40/60 or some other split doesn't matter as long as the Big Tech Oligarchs are leaning Right, which they are--big time.
Since the Supreme Court legalized corruption with the Citizens United decision in 2010--essentially removing all limits on political spending in the name of "free speech"--the position of Zuckerberg, Bezos, Thiel, Andreeson, Musk, etc., matter more than a million front-line coders, who can't just buy things like the Washington Post if they don't like what they hear.
What does it mean to the Big Tech Oligarchs to be "pro-tech" and "future forward" when it comes to AI?
It means:
* We get to hoover up all the IP in the world and repackage and sell it without compensating anyone
* Don't give us any bullshit about data privacy--there is none
* Don't give us any bullshit about liability--if our engines do harm to users (financial, health, relationship, or otherwise), it's not our responsibility
In a nutshell, they want a policy regime that can only be described as Sociopathic Libertarian -- an extreme, narrow view of "freedom" that basically removes all accountability or notion of a social contract for the public good.
That's why they lean right today: because Trump will cheerfully go along with the above so long as he gets his cut.
Your view of technology culture was once true but started dying during the dot-com gold rush and is now officially RIP. Greed is in the driver's seat now, with little hint left of the genuine past idealism of the Home Brew Club, Wired, GBN, the WELL, etc.
Of course, AI does have tremendous potential to solve big problems and generate broad-based prosperity. And there are many good people working hard in those directions. But this won't get anywhere unless we have wise governance in the public interest.
Bottom line: Some powerful force that represents the real needs of society will need to counter-balance the power of the tech oligarchs, or we will all just get steamrolled.
AI is happening. nothing will stop it. nothing ever could stop it. if the US doesn't pursue it, rivals (china, iran, russia, n korea, organized crime) will use it against us to do harm, and allies (uk, france, germany, japan, israel, et al) will use it against us for their advantage.
so, AI is the future. stop. period. done. end. BALR 14,15. bye. end run. close file.
hoover the IP of the world... why not, they hoover ours... and as someone that is an inventor or 112 granted US patents, let me assure you that patents may protect your "very specific" invention, but they don't stop others from making slight "improvements" that allow them to circumvent existing patents and compete with you or eliminate you... which is good, but not what people think a patent does...
there is data privacy unless you give it away in exchange for convenience and enjoyment. i have a father-n-law in the backwoods of missouri, that doesn't own a phone, or have cable, or internet, and he pays cash. very little is known about him...
I hear you and largely agree when you stick your analysis to the right tech oligarchs, and many of those, but not all, who backed Trump. But I have stayed very immersed in the tech scene since those 1990s and early 2000s days that you reference, and I do think there is plenty of idealism left, and many powerful tech folks who still lean left and don’t back Trump. That is particularly true of the Millennial generation folks now assuming much more power, compared to the Gen X ones who are the high profile oligarchs that get all the attention (Zuck the younger exception). Stay open to what might happen next.
chris, you wisely note the "...role of money and power in all of this", which is as old as the original sin.
someone accomplished at judo once told me judo success was about balance, anticipation, and momentum - changing dynamics. the same is true with money and power.
the people with money and power want to keep and grow both. you just have to understand how they think and play on their thinking. and remember that once people accumulate power and money, they make mistakes in attempts to keep the money and power. dynamics change, but they deny it and stick with the "one that brung em".
the "biggest success" stories reveal how new leaders leveraged changing dynamics. they took on and over came the old money and power >>> microsoft, apple, walmart, toyota, google, and more all brought down giants...
i cannot see a moment in human history when so many dynamics were in flux.
- "ip hoovering". ha, i remember when a japanese company was caught stealing the source code to ibm's operating system (circa 1990). not new dude. ditto nuclear weapon ip. etc.
ip is only the starting point of change (innovation). i showed my boss how to enable "mobile check deposit". it was a 30 minute conversation at his desk. he then proceeded to work his butt off for five years and it involved dozens of IT people, business people, lawyers, risk analysts, and more. it involved submitting and prosecuting over 100 related patents. then it involved numerous law suits. bank of america tried to block it. mytek tried to steal it. chase claimed they were the first to offer it. all told, it has now been going on for 19 years and just this week there was a settlement (feb 3, 2026) related to a federal appeals court ruling. 19 years of work. the ip was arguably the least important aspect of the innovation.
- there is "data privacy", if you keep your data to yourself. try to find my father in law - hint backwoods of missouri... nobody knows a damn thing about him. do you want privacy or modern conveniences?
- "liability bullshit"... my last assignment was related to IT risk management in response to a cease and desist order from the fed. mind you, it sounds like the end of the world, but they hand em out like parking tickets. but, if you get one, your bank is at risk of being shut down. regulators hold lots of companies accountable - liable (if you prefer). so do consumers. my last employer grew "organically" from about 1.5m customers to 12m in 5 years after the 2009/2010 bank bru ha ha... customers poured in from b of a and wells fargo...
Good article, but it does make the assumption there will be another election. Fascists don't usually get voted out - if they can't rig an election, lock up their opponents, or control the media, they'll find an excuse to cancel the election. Maybe that's what Minnesota is about, murder enough people until there is an uprising, then stamp on it hard and call a national emergency and cancel the election.... or maybe its just practice for his goons for the suppression that will be needed when the election is cancelled or rigged.
I actually grew up in Minnesota and have a lot of family still there so I am watching this closely. My own perspective is that Trump does not have the ability to shut down the next election, though I understand that fear. What you’re seeing now in Minnesota is an example of why. You can’t pull that off with a nation of 330 million people all armed with video cameras and constantly connected with each other. The truth, for a sizable majority, will get out and a potent force push back forcibly. It’s starting to happen now.
As always a thoughtful essay. I can certainly see you pulling back on the reins at times to tamper strong feelings. I'm not 100% sure you stayed in scope with this essay, and it reads a bit like a personal release of political frustration, but that's all good as it is your endeavor.
Maximizing individual liberty versus broader social consequences is a fairly new problem. It wasn't really a concern until circa 1800 when the western monarchs were overthrown. Of course, it is not a concern even to this day in China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Most of Africa, Syria, et al.
The founders of the nation were apparently tech right... they had concern for broader social considerations, but were obviously far more concerned about keeping government from imposing on individual rights under the guise of broader social concerns (oppressed becoming the oppressors). Hence the governmental structure we have today: a house to represent the people, a senate to represent industry, an executive branch to operate, the SCOTUS to determine compliance with the constitution, strong states, and strong local entities.
Of course, the strongest of the federal entities is intentionally the house. But, the founders also wanted states to be powerful so the citizenry had some choices when seeking life, liberty, and happiness; versus having one central authority governing the entire nation - at times with a slim majority, or even perhaps a very engaged minority.
Certainly maximizing individual liberty leads to greed and vast inequalities, just as it simultaneously leads to envy, jealousy, and calls for government imposition.
I'm far more concerned about equity of opportunity than equity of outcomes, and I will resist all efforts to achieve equity of outcomes via government intervention - I've read far too much history to fall for that trap...
Trump is a bully, but Biden was a disaster, and both political parties have contributed to our nation's problems.
It is certain that the innovations of the 1800's and 1900's contributed to better living conditions for all of humanity - far less abject poverty, better health, longer lives, more mobility, more lifestyle choices, and more individual liberty.
I'm hoping that the tech world, regardless of their views on government, can find a way to lift the entire nation and world economically and socially with innovations in AI, energy, physics, chemistry, and biology.
I am 100% confident that the tech world will not provide a better way to govern (create and enforce laws).
I hope the tech world will provide better ways for us to operate.
Meanwhile, I fear emerging technologies being used by government to oppress - as they already are in China, Russia, North Korea - we do not need an automated King George ruling America.
I follow you and get what you are saying. I do think that the tech itself is going to bring many positive things under almost any scenario. But I do think tech has to help influence the world outside its industry in ways that work better for everyone over the long haul. I was trying to position this piece in a way that points out the problems of both national parties, but opens up the possibilities of rebooting a different kind of politics just ahead.
assuming you mean "tech" to be automation, yeah, every industry, every level of government, and almost every american should benefit from improved automation.
i'm very sure i don't want "tech" or tech innovators (jobs, gates, bezos, musk, and their ilk) changing healthcare, banking, insurance, etc. i want industry professionals like doctors, bankers, actuaries, etc. changing their specific industry.
ditto government. i don't want statisticians, software engineers, electronic engineers, or venture capitalists messing with governing. that needs to be voters and elected officials.
politics is just someone trying to get the outcome that they prefer thru the actions of others...
seems to me that to have a "different kind of politics" we americans first need to come to some agreement about: 1.) how much government should be involved in our lives, 2.) how much it should be involved in dealing with the differences caused by nature/luck, 3.) and how much it should be involved in the differences between individuals (abilities, motivation).
we seem to have a large divide with 1/3 leaning for changes to the left (equity perhaps), 1/3 leaning for changes to the right (individual liberty perhaps), and 1/3 that want something else including potentially no changes. i don't see tech as a solution to resolving these differences. in fact, one could argue that tech has enabled harmful disinformation, though i lay more blame on politicians, the press, and foreign social media intervention.
i for one have been a part of 25 mission trips to repair homes (new roofs, floors, etc.) to help folks that need help. i prefer this approach to the government taxing one group of people to help another group of people.
when i used to run fund raising campaigns for united way, i'd tell my audience that there are three ways to help people in need. 1.) be right there with them - can be emotionally, physically, and financially tough; 2.) be a volunteer like me and make public presentations - some people don't like public speaking; 3.) donate to local charities - the easy way out.
there is a fourth way and that is to give it to government, but we see what that has gotten us... welfare ghettos, destruction of the nuclear family, large full prisons, and $35 trillion of debt.
AI is a tool, just like a car or a firearm. All three have the capacity to be used for what we define as “good” or “bad”, and we somehow assume that everyone will exhibit the exemplary moral behavior expected of a human using those tools.
AI’s capacity for greatness must be met with the reality that it can also be used to cause great harm. Therefore, the most important thing we as a human race should be focused on with AI right now before we get too far ahead of ourselves is to ensure there are guide rails - ya know, like the ones at the bowling alley for kids to to have a chance at the game. (And psst….the human race is all the kids.)
The essay I’m dropping here is written as part of an ongoing body of work on AI-enabled coercive control and its intersection with domestic violence, trauma responses, and institutional failure.
It is not therapy, not diagnosis, and not an invitation to debate my experience. But it is a call to action, for left and right tech heads alike, to anticipate the depth of despicable characters in this world who are increasingly capable of what I have already experienced.
What happens if what I went through were to be done at a larger scale?
sorry Jess, unrealistic. wish you were right. you aren't.
AI is just a tool, but:
the first error is that you define "we" as the "human race". "we" are not the human race. "we" are a conglomerate of peoples with different, values, beliefs, and conflicting priorities.
second error, we are emotional creatures driven by envy, jealousy, and the willingness to use violence.
the nuclear miracle was the adoption and widespread acceptance of Mutually Assured Destruction that kept sane, and borderline insane leaders from using nuclear weapons.
what the US does with AI will have to address what China, Russia, Iran, N Korea, and Organized Crime do with AI.
My comment wasn’t about being right or wrong, or about assuming people will behave well.
It was about awareness — that AI, like other powerful tools, amplifies existing human behavior, and that the risks often become visible only after those tools are widely normalized.
We’ve seen this pattern with other forms of power: surveillance technologies adopted before oversight, social media scaled before understanding psychological harm, and even weapons or financial instruments that were normalized long before their downstream consequences were fully reckoned with. In that sense, much of what you’re describing about human nature, power, and incentive structures actually supports the concern I was pointing to, rather than contradicting it.
i'm still over-indexing on your use of "human behavior".
the Chinese leadership (for example) does not see surveillance like you and me. they see it as good for The People, so once again, "human behavior" is relative. what you and i dislike is not aligned with what other's seek.
weapons are obvious. of course, we were racing the germans to the "atomic bomb finish line" and they were allies with the japanese...
but i agree with you that some innovations augment our flaws. impossible to ignore that reality.
as a nation, the US must manage the lowest common denominator when an innovation like AI (statistical methods applied to data using electronic processing) emerges... most in the US intelligence community consider the top 5 threats to the US to be china, russia, n korea, iran, and organized crime. iran might fall off that list, and russia has likely been surpassed by china.
we cannot control how rivals will develop or use AI. many americans are worried about "capitalism" destroying democracy in America, when the far bigger threat is other nations with different ideologies advancing AI beyond our ability to cope.
btw, capitalism is enabling our ability to advance AI. just a cautionary note.
innovation is always ahead of regulation, and it has to be because while we can understand human nature and human behavior, we have proven that we are unable to predict it. so, government control, even in china, always trails how humans use an innovation.
as a side note. circa 2003, at an infosec conference. the keynote speaker opened by telling us that there were - i'm going to make the numbers, but they are very close - 96 people pursuing infosec PhD's in US based universities; 45 were foreign students being paid for by their home country; and it was estimated that 10 were pursuing PhD's being paid for by organized crime.
i have a difficult time imaging that any amount of ethical urging will stop people willing to engage in human trafficking, distribution of life destroying drugs, arms trade, pornography, counterfeiting, etc.
organized crime is pursuing the nefarious use of AI at full throttle, and they gladly work with anybody that can pay...
i have probably gone off track too much... bygones
Mr. Leyden's intent, i think, is to have discussions such as ours so that we can influence how the many emerging and converging innovations develop...
I think we’re still largely aligned, even if we’re approaching this from different perspectives.
When I use “human behavior,” I’m not referring to shared values, moral universals, or whether different governments or cultures define things like surveillance as good or bad. What I’m pointing to is something observable: when powerful tools enter the world, they tend to amplify whatever incentives, structures, and power dynamics already exist, regardless of how those uses are justified.
Im totally with you on the fact that not all people will agree, behave ethically, or be stopped by laws and regulations. My concern is that normalization comes first, with consequences to be reckoned with later. By the time we are debating what went wrong and how we got there, the harm is often already embedded.
So yes - I absolutely agree that awareness is not going to stop any of that. I certainly left my childhood utopian dreams at the feet of my abuser.
Awareness is about recognizing patterns early enough that we are not pretending surprise when these tools are used in ways we already know humans are capable of.
Awareness is also necessary to build support structures at a community level, the kind of structures that address not only educational needs, but also the life assistance people need to get back on track.
Awareness spreads not by convincing everyone, but by making it harder to pretend the pattern isn’t there.
We always have the choice to teach the next generations, our children and grandchildren, that it is not too late, and not impossible, for a grassroots idea to change the world.
Always enjoy and learn something from your essays. You provide an interesting historical perspective.
Let’s hope Trump is more than just a speed bump to global liberal governance. We are not ready for the one party governance you have advocated and I find so incredibly naive. Trump may fall from grace taking the Republican Party with him but if so, I would argue it will be from the enemies within rather than lack of intellect.
Let’s also hope AI can quickly deliver the benefits to mankind providing the quality of life derived from true freedom.
Imagine what we could accomplish (together) if AI can help eliminate the corruption of fraud waste and abuse that has overwhelmed our societies.
"global liberal governance" was operated and paid for by the US tax payer from 1947 to today. more recently it has led to $36 trillion in US debt... and, it failed in all muslim nations, is a sham in central and south america, failed in most of asia, and is unlikely to work in africa...
we did what we did to counter the ussr/russia (regardless of party or president), to keep them from taking the rest of europe (giving them direct access to the atlantic). russia now can't beat a lightweight like ukraine in a conventional war. so, time to let european nations manage their own issues again (and we can take a backseat in nato).
china is the new threat to the US, though china has serious issues rarely seen in the news.
regardless of the party or president the US was about to refocus away from policing the world and defending europe, to keep china from engulfing taiwan, japan, s korea, vietnam, et al and having direct access to the pacific.
the US, regardless of president or party, will shift focus and resources to the pacific via alliances and commerce (instead of another vietnam like war, hopefully).
China is “engulfing“ more than the Asia Pacific countries. Being the main global threat, the list of countries needs to include most of the western hemisphere hence, the “Donroe” Doctrine. Our failing media thinks they can control the narrative of our (lacking) strategy in Venezuela to “control the oil”. The cartels running Venezuela have accumulated immense wealth from the trifecta of vast oil reserves, massive gold mines and drugs. With the help of Cuban intelligence the Venezuelan cartel del sole has controlled elections throughout Central America and many other countries. Delsey Rodriquez’s step father was Carlos the Jackal. She won’t last long. The cartels are about to implode.
So far Trumps lack of strategy has targeted China’s influence in Panama, Venezuela and soon to be Greenland. Hopefully we can take back our land here in the U.S. soon!
China is “engulfing“ more than the Asia Pacific countries. Being the main global threat, the list of countries needs to include most of the western hemisphere hence, the “Donroe” Doctrine. Our failing media thinks they can control the narrative of our (lacking) strategy in Venezuela to “control the oil”. The cartels running Venezuela have accumulated immense wealth from the trifecta of vast oil reserves, massive gold mines and drugs. With the help of Cuban intelligence the Venezuelan cartel del sole has controlled elections throughout Central and South America and many other countries. Delsey Rodriquez’s step father was Carlos the Jackal. She won’t last long. The cartels are about to implode.
So far Trumps lack of strategy has targeted China’s influence in Panama, Venezuela and soon to be Greenland. Hopefully we can take back our land here in the U.S. soon!
agreed. china has planted seeds all over south america. many will be weakened by trump. some would have been weakened by harris or the next president as well. an unstable south america is not good for north america.
chinese (or russian) ability to disrupt US supply lines, and commerce with south american nations would also be bad for the US. so, kick em out before they get that influential, or keep them repressed...
Tom, I thought I made it clear in this piece that we need the perennial two sides of all politics, those who approach it from a more conservative side, and those from the more progressive. It’s the yin/yang of politics that has always driven America, and Europe, and anywhere there are democracies. That was how Right Tech and Left Tech got along for a long time in the Valley.
There was a time when I did write a series of articles (before the pandemic) that I did think Trump just had to be beaten, and the Republicans and Red states were not going to rein him in, and so I advocated that the other side just had to overwhelming win, like in California.
In the long-term though, we need to have both political perspectives in constant dialogue. That’s a healthy way to proceed. That’s when America works best. Now, the two sides can barely talk, let alone cooperate.
My book that I am currently writing is trying to figure out how that might look and play out in the next 25 years.
Good to hear you say we need to have both political perspectives. I’ll read your essay again as my recollection is a 70-30 or 60-40 split is ideal. That’s not what I call perspective.
Your advocacy of one party governance I was referring to was actually after Biden won with a seemingly euphoric wave of left wins sweeping across Western Europe.
Respectfully, I appreciate following your work but often find it driven by an ideological objective.
Right on sir. Totally agree. 70/30 sounds about right.
Two points I'd add. You didn't mention crypto. The intrinsic underlying purpose of the blockchaon never really had a problem it was solving. It's purpose was greed.
It was the Crypto Bros that PAID for Trump. The speculating and predictive scum who "bet" on Trump and guess who's literally printing money now?
Crypto needed to get the US government to de-regulate, and that's what they're doing and why the Fed is next.
Putin has those videos he's using to pull Trump's puppet strings and the reasoning is clear now, destroy the NATO alliance which was created to STOP the rise of another fascist state. Well that's why Trump is invading Greenland.
The final thing I wanna say is yet an
another January prediction. I predict Right-Tech and Left-tech becomes a "thing" and that WE (THE MAUORITY) take back the moral high ground and make DEI, ESG, morals, ethics and positivity the "thing", once again.
I hope we've learned our lessons and that we can move beyond from being overly Woke, and vilifying men, just cause we have penises. Iindeed the enemy are "white men", but it is an alliance of black, brown. Yellow and native, uniting (wo)men together which will form the basis of Left-Tech
As Prof Galloway reminds us, "men are people too."
Sorry Peter, I cannot stop myself from being snarky here...
Marc,
1.) you conflate blockchain and crypto. blockchain is a tool, cyrpto is an application of the tool... foundational knowledge...
2.) biden and crew also printed record amounts of dollars. you understand that right? were they "crypto bros"?
3.) the US isn't invading greenland... good grief. if we did, all we would need is a squad...
4.) the US is far from dismantling the federal reserve. and there is no crypto currency that actually provides all the functions of fiat currency.
5.) allowing crypto is not the same as "de-regulating" it. if the US government allows it, they will regulate the crap out of it like everything else...
6.) where are these conspiracy theory putin videos?
7.) you forgot to mention the weinstein conspiracy emails...
8.) that closing paragraph, what?
> DEI is anti-democratic.
> ESG is a different set of "crypto bros" using federal funds to get rich...
> morals vary from society to society. morals vary within society. i assume you mean you want to impose your morals on everyone else...
> positivity? that is positively funny coming from you based on your comments...
I was with you most of the way, but feel your blind spot has reared itself again: profound naivete about the role of money and power in all of this.
Whether tech sector professionals are 50/50, 60/40, 40/60 or some other split doesn't matter as long as the Big Tech Oligarchs are leaning Right, which they are--big time.
Since the Supreme Court legalized corruption with the Citizens United decision in 2010--essentially removing all limits on political spending in the name of "free speech"--the position of Zuckerberg, Bezos, Thiel, Andreeson, Musk, etc., matter more than a million front-line coders, who can't just buy things like the Washington Post if they don't like what they hear.
What does it mean to the Big Tech Oligarchs to be "pro-tech" and "future forward" when it comes to AI?
It means:
* We get to hoover up all the IP in the world and repackage and sell it without compensating anyone
* Don't give us any bullshit about data privacy--there is none
* Don't give us any bullshit about liability--if our engines do harm to users (financial, health, relationship, or otherwise), it's not our responsibility
In a nutshell, they want a policy regime that can only be described as Sociopathic Libertarian -- an extreme, narrow view of "freedom" that basically removes all accountability or notion of a social contract for the public good.
That's why they lean right today: because Trump will cheerfully go along with the above so long as he gets his cut.
Your view of technology culture was once true but started dying during the dot-com gold rush and is now officially RIP. Greed is in the driver's seat now, with little hint left of the genuine past idealism of the Home Brew Club, Wired, GBN, the WELL, etc.
Of course, AI does have tremendous potential to solve big problems and generate broad-based prosperity. And there are many good people working hard in those directions. But this won't get anywhere unless we have wise governance in the public interest.
Bottom line: Some powerful force that represents the real needs of society will need to counter-balance the power of the tech oligarchs, or we will all just get steamrolled.
AI is happening. nothing will stop it. nothing ever could stop it. if the US doesn't pursue it, rivals (china, iran, russia, n korea, organized crime) will use it against us to do harm, and allies (uk, france, germany, japan, israel, et al) will use it against us for their advantage.
so, AI is the future. stop. period. done. end. BALR 14,15. bye. end run. close file.
hoover the IP of the world... why not, they hoover ours... and as someone that is an inventor or 112 granted US patents, let me assure you that patents may protect your "very specific" invention, but they don't stop others from making slight "improvements" that allow them to circumvent existing patents and compete with you or eliminate you... which is good, but not what people think a patent does...
there is data privacy unless you give it away in exchange for convenience and enjoyment. i have a father-n-law in the backwoods of missouri, that doesn't own a phone, or have cable, or internet, and he pays cash. very little is known about him...
Finally, a lefty (I presume) with whom I agree.
I hear you and largely agree when you stick your analysis to the right tech oligarchs, and many of those, but not all, who backed Trump. But I have stayed very immersed in the tech scene since those 1990s and early 2000s days that you reference, and I do think there is plenty of idealism left, and many powerful tech folks who still lean left and don’t back Trump. That is particularly true of the Millennial generation folks now assuming much more power, compared to the Gen X ones who are the high profile oligarchs that get all the attention (Zuck the younger exception). Stay open to what might happen next.
chris, you wisely note the "...role of money and power in all of this", which is as old as the original sin.
someone accomplished at judo once told me judo success was about balance, anticipation, and momentum - changing dynamics. the same is true with money and power.
the people with money and power want to keep and grow both. you just have to understand how they think and play on their thinking. and remember that once people accumulate power and money, they make mistakes in attempts to keep the money and power. dynamics change, but they deny it and stick with the "one that brung em".
the "biggest success" stories reveal how new leaders leveraged changing dynamics. they took on and over came the old money and power >>> microsoft, apple, walmart, toyota, google, and more all brought down giants...
i cannot see a moment in human history when so many dynamics were in flux.
- "ip hoovering". ha, i remember when a japanese company was caught stealing the source code to ibm's operating system (circa 1990). not new dude. ditto nuclear weapon ip. etc.
ip is only the starting point of change (innovation). i showed my boss how to enable "mobile check deposit". it was a 30 minute conversation at his desk. he then proceeded to work his butt off for five years and it involved dozens of IT people, business people, lawyers, risk analysts, and more. it involved submitting and prosecuting over 100 related patents. then it involved numerous law suits. bank of america tried to block it. mytek tried to steal it. chase claimed they were the first to offer it. all told, it has now been going on for 19 years and just this week there was a settlement (feb 3, 2026) related to a federal appeals court ruling. 19 years of work. the ip was arguably the least important aspect of the innovation.
- there is "data privacy", if you keep your data to yourself. try to find my father in law - hint backwoods of missouri... nobody knows a damn thing about him. do you want privacy or modern conveniences?
- "liability bullshit"... my last assignment was related to IT risk management in response to a cease and desist order from the fed. mind you, it sounds like the end of the world, but they hand em out like parking tickets. but, if you get one, your bank is at risk of being shut down. regulators hold lots of companies accountable - liable (if you prefer). so do consumers. my last employer grew "organically" from about 1.5m customers to 12m in 5 years after the 2009/2010 bank bru ha ha... customers poured in from b of a and wells fargo...
Good article, but it does make the assumption there will be another election. Fascists don't usually get voted out - if they can't rig an election, lock up their opponents, or control the media, they'll find an excuse to cancel the election. Maybe that's what Minnesota is about, murder enough people until there is an uprising, then stamp on it hard and call a national emergency and cancel the election.... or maybe its just practice for his goons for the suppression that will be needed when the election is cancelled or rigged.
I actually grew up in Minnesota and have a lot of family still there so I am watching this closely. My own perspective is that Trump does not have the ability to shut down the next election, though I understand that fear. What you’re seeing now in Minnesota is an example of why. You can’t pull that off with a nation of 330 million people all armed with video cameras and constantly connected with each other. The truth, for a sizable majority, will get out and a potent force push back forcibly. It’s starting to happen now.
As always a thoughtful essay. I can certainly see you pulling back on the reins at times to tamper strong feelings. I'm not 100% sure you stayed in scope with this essay, and it reads a bit like a personal release of political frustration, but that's all good as it is your endeavor.
Maximizing individual liberty versus broader social consequences is a fairly new problem. It wasn't really a concern until circa 1800 when the western monarchs were overthrown. Of course, it is not a concern even to this day in China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Most of Africa, Syria, et al.
The founders of the nation were apparently tech right... they had concern for broader social considerations, but were obviously far more concerned about keeping government from imposing on individual rights under the guise of broader social concerns (oppressed becoming the oppressors). Hence the governmental structure we have today: a house to represent the people, a senate to represent industry, an executive branch to operate, the SCOTUS to determine compliance with the constitution, strong states, and strong local entities.
Of course, the strongest of the federal entities is intentionally the house. But, the founders also wanted states to be powerful so the citizenry had some choices when seeking life, liberty, and happiness; versus having one central authority governing the entire nation - at times with a slim majority, or even perhaps a very engaged minority.
Certainly maximizing individual liberty leads to greed and vast inequalities, just as it simultaneously leads to envy, jealousy, and calls for government imposition.
I'm far more concerned about equity of opportunity than equity of outcomes, and I will resist all efforts to achieve equity of outcomes via government intervention - I've read far too much history to fall for that trap...
Trump is a bully, but Biden was a disaster, and both political parties have contributed to our nation's problems.
It is certain that the innovations of the 1800's and 1900's contributed to better living conditions for all of humanity - far less abject poverty, better health, longer lives, more mobility, more lifestyle choices, and more individual liberty.
I'm hoping that the tech world, regardless of their views on government, can find a way to lift the entire nation and world economically and socially with innovations in AI, energy, physics, chemistry, and biology.
I am 100% confident that the tech world will not provide a better way to govern (create and enforce laws).
I hope the tech world will provide better ways for us to operate.
Meanwhile, I fear emerging technologies being used by government to oppress - as they already are in China, Russia, North Korea - we do not need an automated King George ruling America.
Couldn’t agree more.
I follow you and get what you are saying. I do think that the tech itself is going to bring many positive things under almost any scenario. But I do think tech has to help influence the world outside its industry in ways that work better for everyone over the long haul. I was trying to position this piece in a way that points out the problems of both national parties, but opens up the possibilities of rebooting a different kind of politics just ahead.
please elaborate on what you mean by "tech".
. . . . . . . .
assuming you mean "tech" to be automation, yeah, every industry, every level of government, and almost every american should benefit from improved automation.
i'm very sure i don't want "tech" or tech innovators (jobs, gates, bezos, musk, and their ilk) changing healthcare, banking, insurance, etc. i want industry professionals like doctors, bankers, actuaries, etc. changing their specific industry.
ditto government. i don't want statisticians, software engineers, electronic engineers, or venture capitalists messing with governing. that needs to be voters and elected officials.
politics is just someone trying to get the outcome that they prefer thru the actions of others...
seems to me that to have a "different kind of politics" we americans first need to come to some agreement about: 1.) how much government should be involved in our lives, 2.) how much it should be involved in dealing with the differences caused by nature/luck, 3.) and how much it should be involved in the differences between individuals (abilities, motivation).
we seem to have a large divide with 1/3 leaning for changes to the left (equity perhaps), 1/3 leaning for changes to the right (individual liberty perhaps), and 1/3 that want something else including potentially no changes. i don't see tech as a solution to resolving these differences. in fact, one could argue that tech has enabled harmful disinformation, though i lay more blame on politicians, the press, and foreign social media intervention.
i for one have been a part of 25 mission trips to repair homes (new roofs, floors, etc.) to help folks that need help. i prefer this approach to the government taxing one group of people to help another group of people.
when i used to run fund raising campaigns for united way, i'd tell my audience that there are three ways to help people in need. 1.) be right there with them - can be emotionally, physically, and financially tough; 2.) be a volunteer like me and make public presentations - some people don't like public speaking; 3.) donate to local charities - the easy way out.
there is a fourth way and that is to give it to government, but we see what that has gotten us... welfare ghettos, destruction of the nuclear family, large full prisons, and $35 trillion of debt.
AI is a tool, just like a car or a firearm. All three have the capacity to be used for what we define as “good” or “bad”, and we somehow assume that everyone will exhibit the exemplary moral behavior expected of a human using those tools.
AI’s capacity for greatness must be met with the reality that it can also be used to cause great harm. Therefore, the most important thing we as a human race should be focused on with AI right now before we get too far ahead of ourselves is to ensure there are guide rails - ya know, like the ones at the bowling alley for kids to to have a chance at the game. (And psst….the human race is all the kids.)
The essay I’m dropping here is written as part of an ongoing body of work on AI-enabled coercive control and its intersection with domestic violence, trauma responses, and institutional failure.
It is not therapy, not diagnosis, and not an invitation to debate my experience. But it is a call to action, for left and right tech heads alike, to anticipate the depth of despicable characters in this world who are increasingly capable of what I have already experienced.
What happens if what I went through were to be done at a larger scale?
https://open.substack.com/pub/jessmaeve/p/chapter-four-a-dialogue-with-chatgpt?r=5zk3yx&utm_medium=ios
sorry Jess, unrealistic. wish you were right. you aren't.
AI is just a tool, but:
the first error is that you define "we" as the "human race". "we" are not the human race. "we" are a conglomerate of peoples with different, values, beliefs, and conflicting priorities.
second error, we are emotional creatures driven by envy, jealousy, and the willingness to use violence.
the nuclear miracle was the adoption and widespread acceptance of Mutually Assured Destruction that kept sane, and borderline insane leaders from using nuclear weapons.
what the US does with AI will have to address what China, Russia, Iran, N Korea, and Organized Crime do with AI.
nice "what if" though
My comment wasn’t about being right or wrong, or about assuming people will behave well.
It was about awareness — that AI, like other powerful tools, amplifies existing human behavior, and that the risks often become visible only after those tools are widely normalized.
We’ve seen this pattern with other forms of power: surveillance technologies adopted before oversight, social media scaled before understanding psychological harm, and even weapons or financial instruments that were normalized long before their downstream consequences were fully reckoned with. In that sense, much of what you’re describing about human nature, power, and incentive structures actually supports the concern I was pointing to, rather than contradicting it.
i see that your comment is about awareness.
i'm still over-indexing on your use of "human behavior".
the Chinese leadership (for example) does not see surveillance like you and me. they see it as good for The People, so once again, "human behavior" is relative. what you and i dislike is not aligned with what other's seek.
weapons are obvious. of course, we were racing the germans to the "atomic bomb finish line" and they were allies with the japanese...
but i agree with you that some innovations augment our flaws. impossible to ignore that reality.
as a nation, the US must manage the lowest common denominator when an innovation like AI (statistical methods applied to data using electronic processing) emerges... most in the US intelligence community consider the top 5 threats to the US to be china, russia, n korea, iran, and organized crime. iran might fall off that list, and russia has likely been surpassed by china.
we cannot control how rivals will develop or use AI. many americans are worried about "capitalism" destroying democracy in America, when the far bigger threat is other nations with different ideologies advancing AI beyond our ability to cope.
btw, capitalism is enabling our ability to advance AI. just a cautionary note.
innovation is always ahead of regulation, and it has to be because while we can understand human nature and human behavior, we have proven that we are unable to predict it. so, government control, even in china, always trails how humans use an innovation.
as a side note. circa 2003, at an infosec conference. the keynote speaker opened by telling us that there were - i'm going to make the numbers, but they are very close - 96 people pursuing infosec PhD's in US based universities; 45 were foreign students being paid for by their home country; and it was estimated that 10 were pursuing PhD's being paid for by organized crime.
i have a difficult time imaging that any amount of ethical urging will stop people willing to engage in human trafficking, distribution of life destroying drugs, arms trade, pornography, counterfeiting, etc.
organized crime is pursuing the nefarious use of AI at full throttle, and they gladly work with anybody that can pay...
i have probably gone off track too much... bygones
Mr. Leyden's intent, i think, is to have discussions such as ours so that we can influence how the many emerging and converging innovations develop...
I think we’re still largely aligned, even if we’re approaching this from different perspectives.
When I use “human behavior,” I’m not referring to shared values, moral universals, or whether different governments or cultures define things like surveillance as good or bad. What I’m pointing to is something observable: when powerful tools enter the world, they tend to amplify whatever incentives, structures, and power dynamics already exist, regardless of how those uses are justified.
Im totally with you on the fact that not all people will agree, behave ethically, or be stopped by laws and regulations. My concern is that normalization comes first, with consequences to be reckoned with later. By the time we are debating what went wrong and how we got there, the harm is often already embedded.
So yes - I absolutely agree that awareness is not going to stop any of that. I certainly left my childhood utopian dreams at the feet of my abuser.
Awareness is about recognizing patterns early enough that we are not pretending surprise when these tools are used in ways we already know humans are capable of.
Awareness is also necessary to build support structures at a community level, the kind of structures that address not only educational needs, but also the life assistance people need to get back on track.
Awareness spreads not by convincing everyone, but by making it harder to pretend the pattern isn’t there.
We always have the choice to teach the next generations, our children and grandchildren, that it is not too late, and not impossible, for a grassroots idea to change the world.
What a great article. Thank you
Great analysis.
Always enjoy and learn something from your essays. You provide an interesting historical perspective.
Let’s hope Trump is more than just a speed bump to global liberal governance. We are not ready for the one party governance you have advocated and I find so incredibly naive. Trump may fall from grace taking the Republican Party with him but if so, I would argue it will be from the enemies within rather than lack of intellect.
Let’s also hope AI can quickly deliver the benefits to mankind providing the quality of life derived from true freedom.
Imagine what we could accomplish (together) if AI can help eliminate the corruption of fraud waste and abuse that has overwhelmed our societies.
"global liberal governance" was operated and paid for by the US tax payer from 1947 to today. more recently it has led to $36 trillion in US debt... and, it failed in all muslim nations, is a sham in central and south america, failed in most of asia, and is unlikely to work in africa...
we did what we did to counter the ussr/russia (regardless of party or president), to keep them from taking the rest of europe (giving them direct access to the atlantic). russia now can't beat a lightweight like ukraine in a conventional war. so, time to let european nations manage their own issues again (and we can take a backseat in nato).
china is the new threat to the US, though china has serious issues rarely seen in the news.
regardless of the party or president the US was about to refocus away from policing the world and defending europe, to keep china from engulfing taiwan, japan, s korea, vietnam, et al and having direct access to the pacific.
the US, regardless of president or party, will shift focus and resources to the pacific via alliances and commerce (instead of another vietnam like war, hopefully).
China is “engulfing“ more than the Asia Pacific countries. Being the main global threat, the list of countries needs to include most of the western hemisphere hence, the “Donroe” Doctrine. Our failing media thinks they can control the narrative of our (lacking) strategy in Venezuela to “control the oil”. The cartels running Venezuela have accumulated immense wealth from the trifecta of vast oil reserves, massive gold mines and drugs. With the help of Cuban intelligence the Venezuelan cartel del sole has controlled elections throughout Central America and many other countries. Delsey Rodriquez’s step father was Carlos the Jackal. She won’t last long. The cartels are about to implode.
So far Trumps lack of strategy has targeted China’s influence in Panama, Venezuela and soon to be Greenland. Hopefully we can take back our land here in the U.S. soon!
China is “engulfing“ more than the Asia Pacific countries. Being the main global threat, the list of countries needs to include most of the western hemisphere hence, the “Donroe” Doctrine. Our failing media thinks they can control the narrative of our (lacking) strategy in Venezuela to “control the oil”. The cartels running Venezuela have accumulated immense wealth from the trifecta of vast oil reserves, massive gold mines and drugs. With the help of Cuban intelligence the Venezuelan cartel del sole has controlled elections throughout Central and South America and many other countries. Delsey Rodriquez’s step father was Carlos the Jackal. She won’t last long. The cartels are about to implode.
So far Trumps lack of strategy has targeted China’s influence in Panama, Venezuela and soon to be Greenland. Hopefully we can take back our land here in the U.S. soon!
agreed. china has planted seeds all over south america. many will be weakened by trump. some would have been weakened by harris or the next president as well. an unstable south america is not good for north america.
chinese (or russian) ability to disrupt US supply lines, and commerce with south american nations would also be bad for the US. so, kick em out before they get that influential, or keep them repressed...
Tom, I thought I made it clear in this piece that we need the perennial two sides of all politics, those who approach it from a more conservative side, and those from the more progressive. It’s the yin/yang of politics that has always driven America, and Europe, and anywhere there are democracies. That was how Right Tech and Left Tech got along for a long time in the Valley.
There was a time when I did write a series of articles (before the pandemic) that I did think Trump just had to be beaten, and the Republicans and Red states were not going to rein him in, and so I advocated that the other side just had to overwhelming win, like in California.
In the long-term though, we need to have both political perspectives in constant dialogue. That’s a healthy way to proceed. That’s when America works best. Now, the two sides can barely talk, let alone cooperate.
My book that I am currently writing is trying to figure out how that might look and play out in the next 25 years.
Good to hear you say we need to have both political perspectives. I’ll read your essay again as my recollection is a 70-30 or 60-40 split is ideal. That’s not what I call perspective.
Your advocacy of one party governance I was referring to was actually after Biden won with a seemingly euphoric wave of left wins sweeping across Western Europe.
Respectfully, I appreciate following your work but often find it driven by an ideological objective.
Right on sir. Totally agree. 70/30 sounds about right.
Two points I'd add. You didn't mention crypto. The intrinsic underlying purpose of the blockchaon never really had a problem it was solving. It's purpose was greed.
It was the Crypto Bros that PAID for Trump. The speculating and predictive scum who "bet" on Trump and guess who's literally printing money now?
Crypto needed to get the US government to de-regulate, and that's what they're doing and why the Fed is next.
Putin has those videos he's using to pull Trump's puppet strings and the reasoning is clear now, destroy the NATO alliance which was created to STOP the rise of another fascist state. Well that's why Trump is invading Greenland.
The final thing I wanna say is yet an
another January prediction. I predict Right-Tech and Left-tech becomes a "thing" and that WE (THE MAUORITY) take back the moral high ground and make DEI, ESG, morals, ethics and positivity the "thing", once again.
I hope we've learned our lessons and that we can move beyond from being overly Woke, and vilifying men, just cause we have penises. Iindeed the enemy are "white men", but it is an alliance of black, brown. Yellow and native, uniting (wo)men together which will form the basis of Left-Tech
As Prof Galloway reminds us, "men are people too."
Sorry Peter, I cannot stop myself from being snarky here...
Marc,
1.) you conflate blockchain and crypto. blockchain is a tool, cyrpto is an application of the tool... foundational knowledge...
2.) biden and crew also printed record amounts of dollars. you understand that right? were they "crypto bros"?
3.) the US isn't invading greenland... good grief. if we did, all we would need is a squad...
4.) the US is far from dismantling the federal reserve. and there is no crypto currency that actually provides all the functions of fiat currency.
5.) allowing crypto is not the same as "de-regulating" it. if the US government allows it, they will regulate the crap out of it like everything else...
6.) where are these conspiracy theory putin videos?
7.) you forgot to mention the weinstein conspiracy emails...
8.) that closing paragraph, what?
> DEI is anti-democratic.
> ESG is a different set of "crypto bros" using federal funds to get rich...
> morals vary from society to society. morals vary within society. i assume you mean you want to impose your morals on everyone else...
> positivity? that is positively funny coming from you based on your comments...