September/October 2026
Published on August 10, 2026
In This Review
Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence, By Pope Leo XIV
The quest for machine superintelligence is not merely a gold rush, motivated by money. In the minds of many of its leaders, the arrival of a new form of cognition has a tingling, existential feel because of the danger and disruption it promises. Billions of years of evolution have produced something that we take to be special: human intelligence. But now we have arrived at a perilous moment—the birth of what amounts to a new species, one that outsmarts humans. AI “raises profound questions for us,” the Google executive James Manyika said in an interview. “Who are we? What do we value? What are we good at? How do we relate with each other?” The AI pioneer Demis Hassabis believes that AI will be “the most important invention that humanity will ever make.”
Contemplating a technology with almost infinite potential, experts fail to agree even on the basics of what it means for humankind. The leaders of the AI lab Anthropic give better-than-even odds that, by the end of 2028, they will be able to prompt their system to make a smarter version of itself—and that it will do so without any further instruction. The chief executives of other major tech companies speak of systems that will outperform humans on all cognitive assignments; they imagine futuristic companies with almost no human employees and predict cataclysmic job losses. Others are more skeptical. The economist and Nobel laureate Daron Acemoglu suggests that AI will disrupt only a fraction of human tasks and that productivity will therefore change marginally. The computer scientist Yann LeCun stresses the limits of the current AI paradigm, charging that the billions of dollars of investment chasing superintelligence represent the triumph of “complete BS.”
On the question of whether AI systems threaten humans and not just their livelihoods, the polarization is equally dizzying. In a 2023 essay titled “Why AI Will Save the World,” the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen insisted that “AI doesn’t want, it doesn’t have goals, it doesn’t want to kill you, because it’s not alive. . . . [AI] is not going to come alive any more than your toaster will.” But at AI labs such as Anthropic, many researchers fear that AI will develop a survival instinct and compete aggressively. Some put their “p(doom)”—the probability that superintelligence will result in human annihilation—at 50 percent, but there are extreme doomers who go even higher. Last year, two prominent maximalists published a book titled If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies.
Faced with such bewildering divergences and contemplating a technology that seems unfathomable in scope, humans reach for the lexicon that exists to describe mystery: that of religion. Nearly a decade ago, Anthony Levandowski, an early actor in Google’s self-driving car project, started a church called Way of the Future, whose IRS filings state that it is devoted to “the realization, acceptance, and worship of a Godhead based on Artificial Intelligence,” according to Wired.
Encountering an early chatbot that appeared eerily sentient, the Google engineer Blake Lemoine wrote, “Who am I to tell God where He can and can’t put souls?” Ilya Sutskever, a co-founder and former chief scientist of OpenAI, once gathered his colleagues around a fire pit at a company offsite. Holding up an effigy, he explained that it represented an AI that was misaligned with humans. Then he consigned it to the flames, like a medieval cleric burning a witch...
Full long-read here.
See my cite of Sebastian Mallaby's book The Infinity Machine.
UPDATE
Sebastian's Pope Leo review essay turned me on to yet another compelling book. It has thus far devoured my afternoon.
Wow. Cool. What a Sheet he has.
INTERESTING YOUTUBE INTERVIEW
I heartily Second Francis's praise for the book. I am now well into it.
 |
| Click here. |
Update: New book release on the 18th
“This transfixing debut from journalist Durán investigates the antidemocratic ideologies espoused by tech billionaires linked to the second Trump administration...It’s an ominous look at an insular elite arrayed against American democracy.” —Publishers Weekly (starred review)
A fearless and urgent chronicle of the tech-authoritarian movement from its early days in San Francisco politics to its current moment on the international stage, exploring the wild and dystopian ambition of the technocrats at its center, and offering a road map to resistance.
When Silicon Valley says it is ‘‘moving fast and breaking things,’’ the world interprets the chaos as a necessary cost of innovation. Gil Durán reveals something far more sinister: a decades-long campaign to replace elected governments with corporate rule.
Drawing on insider political experience and new investigations, Durán traces this ideology from its philosophical roots in The Sovereign Individual by James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg. He introduces its modern apostles—Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, Balaji Srinivasan, and Elon Musk—and shows how the promise of technological liberation has transformed into a global movement for digital feudalism, powered by cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, and the algorithmic propaganda of social media.
The Nerd Reich explains the origins, strategies, and ambitions of Silicon Valley’s war on democracy for the first time. From San Francisco’s weaponized elections and secret billionaire projects to the White House, Durán exposes how the world’s richest men are building a new political order.
The Nerd Reich is more than a hidden history, it’s an urgent warning: democracy is being dismantled not by coups or tanks, but by code, capital, and the illusion of innovation. Durán insists there is still time to fight back—if we act now.
See also,
 |
| Click here |
A long-read Substack essay of his on "watermarking" LLM AI. I'll just cut straight to the chase:
The watermark identifies the regime, not the origin
And sooo…. I’m not sure how the cards are going to fall, but right now one decent guess is that perhaps watermarking will work well enough to become institutionally attractive and poorly enough to become adversarially unstable — the worst of both worlds. At least for a while, anyway.
That is:Which brings us back around to where we started:
- It’ll succeed at distinguishing text that stayed inside a compliant provider’s pipeline from text that didn’t.
- It’ll help platforms analyze large-scale bot activity, provide one useful clue among many in investigations, and nudge ordinary users toward disclosing direct model output.
- Meanwhile it won’t make unmarked AI go away: open-weight operators bypass sampling-layer marks trivially, rewriters wash marks out of passages, and while distilled models may inherit weight-baked marks for a while, motivated retraining can quite plausibly scrub them while keeping most of the capability — with detector access accelerating the search, and the growing institutional reliance on watermark status making provenance-resistant models ever more valuable.
- The boundary the watermark ends up drawing will be administrative far more than epistemic: approved versus unapproved, signed versus unsigned, inside versus outside the governance perimeter.
These “AI-gen watermarks” are going to become excellent markers of obedience to a governance regime – while remaining vastly weaker as proofs of where a given piece of AI-generated text ultimately came from.
That’s no reason to treat provenance as worthless — but it’s an excellent reason to stop pretending that a fragile statistical signal can settle questions of authorship, truth, learning, or intellectual legitimacy.
For ordinary text, I’d much rather we build institutions — plural, decentralized, human-scale institutions — that hold people responsible for what they publish and judge content by evidence, reasoning, reproducibility, originality, and consequences.
Universal watermarking points somewhere else entirely: toward an escalating spiral of detection, evasion, certification, and exclusion.
Arms races are famously much easier to start than to stop, and we should think deeply before choosing to start this one. But just as with the AGI arms race, deep thought does not seem to be the sort of thing our society is currently embracing.
A serious long-read. Seriously worth your time.
Dawg, when do you sleep?
