Alex Epstein

I'm tired of hearing that "the benefits of AI must be broadly distributed" and therefore we need government to intervene. AI benefits will be more broadly and rapidly distributed than any tech in history. Everyone will have access to amazing tutoring, genius medical advice, and an army of helpful assistants—things that were previously available only to the super-wealthy. The people who create the most valuable forms of AI will deserve to make a fortune on it—and that fortune will reflect the level of benefit they've brought to the world. All the ideas for the government to "broadly distribute" the benefits of AI are terrible. Nationalize AI companies, so that progress can crater? Own a percentage of certain AI companies, so government can become even more corrupt and meddling in picking winners and losers? Seize AI companies' future earnings, so that more people can become dependent on government handouts? Government's job regarding AI is fundamentally simple: 1. Modify laws or enforcement practices to handle cases where AI can be used to violate people's rights (e.g., new types of fraud). 2. Protect companies' and individuals' right to pursue AI as they judge best—including to build the life-giving data centers that are now under attack. To do my part to ensure that AI is pursued in a pro-human, pro-freedom way, I have begun work on my next book: The Moral Case for Data Centers.

The average American needs to know: 1) Data centers are the best thing that's happened to you since fossil fuels. 2) All of the alleged problems with data centers are either fake or solvable. CC @dagenmcdowell @brianbrenberg

You must be kidding. AI might have big effects. It could have risks. So “policymakers,”  must "act now,” before they have any idea what they’re doing, to "build the incentives, guardrails, and institutions needed to steer AI in a direction that complements humans and benefits society?” Boy I’m glad no self-appointed “policy maker” decided to “steer” the development of the steam engine. The ones who “steered” nuclear power destroyed it. Preemptive dirigisme is killing tech in Europe. If said “policy makers” could do something about the dumpster fires of US social programs, building restrictions, appalling costs of public infrastructure, broken tax code, failing schools, maybe I’d think about "calling" to unleash them on some vague AI crusade. (Previous essay on this here grumpy-economist.com/p/ai-society-a…)

Full interview here: x.com/AlexEpstein/st…

Congress should not let four Clean Air Act waivers hand California's unelected regulators the power to dictate what car every American can buy. It is time to end the loophole that turns CA's EV mandate into a de facto national mandate — before the midterms. Consumer choice, not California bureaucrats, should decide what's in your driveway.

If you're new to my work, follow me @AlexEpstein for extreme clarity on energy, environmental, and climate issues from a humanist perspective. Also, subscribe to my newsletter, featuring lots of concise, powerful, well-referenced energy talking points. alexepstein.substack.com

Tell your Congressman to introduce and pass "joint resolutions" rejecting each California "waiver," and to do it before the end of the 119th Congress. If they don't, an EV mandate from California will continue to dictate what kinds of cars all Americans are allowed to drive!

America's EV mandate is not dead, thanks to 4 "waivers" that California holds from the Clean Air Act, which let it impose vehicle GHG standards on the whole country. Congress has an opportunity to get rid of these waivers, but they need to act before the midterm election! 🧵👇

If you're new to my work, follow me @AlexEpstein for extreme clarity on energy, environmental, and climate issues from a humanist perspective. Also, subscribe to my newsletter, featuring lots of concise, powerful, well-referenced energy talking points. alexepstein.substack.com

To unleash nuclear energy in this country, the NRC must reject not only ALARA but LNT. This looks like: - Raising the dose limit by up to 50x, a level science shows is still safe - Dropping requirements to reduce radiation below that limit, where science shows no health benefit

1. NRC is right to challenge the "ALARA" rule, which has been catastrophic for nuclear power. 2. Challenging ALARA is not enough. To unleash nuclear power in this country, the NRC needs to reject "LNT," the pseudoscientific radiation model on which ALARA is based. 🧵👇