We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Start with the most actionable item
Dario Amodei’s AI-safety letter
Type / creator: Letter by Dario Amodei. Recommended by: Tomasz Tunguz. Access:discussion in All Eyes on Warsh.
Tunguz calls the letter “really wonderful” because it moves the conversation beyond a simple pro-AI/anti-AI split and identifies work at three levels: the individual company, across companies, and internationally.
Why it matters: This is the clearest practical recommendation in the set: a way to turn an abstract AI-safety argument into a map of who needs to act and where.
Two useful lenses on AI
Ben Hansford’s earlier conversation on working with agents
Type / creator: Video/podcast conversation with Ben Hansford, a USC film professor. Recommended by: Reid Hoffman. Access:Hoffman’s recap; the direct episode link is not included there.
Hoffman says he keeps rewatching the conversation because each viewing teaches him something new. He highlights Hansford’s shift from treating AI as a tool to treating it as a personal team, summed up by the line: “a hammer can’t build a bird box while you sleep.”
Why it matters: It is a concrete model for delegation rather than question-answering: give agents a mission and let them return with completed work.
Yishan’s existential-risk versus misuse post
Type / creator: X essay/post by @yishan. Recommended/shared by: Naval. Link:Yishan’s post. Naval’s accompanying frame is concise: if AI is risky like fire, everyone should have it; if it is risky like a nuclear weapon, no one should.
Yishan’s longer post separates existential risk—the possibility that superintelligence wipes out humanity—from risks caused by powerful AI being misused, then argues that the solutions to those two problems may be nearly opposite.
Why it matters: This is a useful vocabulary for avoiding a common policy failure: two people can say “AI safety” while reasoning about different risks and therefore advocating opposite remedies.
A human precedent for judging behavior under pressure
A French village series about World War II occupation
Type / creator: Television series; the exact title and creator are not named in the exchange. Recommended by: Michael Moritz. Access:Moritz’s interview.
Moritz describes it as a “spectacular” French series about life under occupation: some people resisted, most stayed silent, and some collaborated. During COVID-era Zoom calls, he used those categories as a private test of which acquaintances would have had the backbone to resist.
Why it matters: The recommendation is valuable less as historical background than as a behavioral lens—watching how people respond when conformity, fear, and moral choice collide.
A skeptical counterpoint
@Jason’s AI-“bioweapons” video clip
Type / creator: Video clip featuring @Jason. Recommended by: Bill Gurley. Link:clip post. The post presents the argument that AI-bioweapon fears require an “incredible thriller” and are amplified by science-fiction expectations; Gurley called the clip “spot on” and said people should stop listening to such fantasies.
Use this as a rhetorical counterweight to the risk-focused recommendations above, not as a technical assessment: its value is showing the skeptical, anti-doomer case in its own terms.