jacob l. shapiro

30.5K posts

jacob l. shapiro banner
jacob l. shapiro

jacob l. shapiro

@JacobShap

geopolitical analyst speaker @ https://t.co/Oye7CTDmwd writer @ https://t.co/yqb2Am7qmt podcaster @ https://t.co/TNFYeRLxeT

new orleans, la Katılım Mart 2011
2.7K Takip Edilen15K Takipçiler
jacob l. shapiro retweetledi
Andrew Kaczynski
NEW: The health official who led the public response to the Hantavirus outbreak has little background in public health and previously was a penile implant specialist who hosted a podcast where he questioned the 2020 election and compared the Biden administration to Nazi Germany.
Andrew Kaczynski tweet media
English
128
969
2.6K
213.7K
Daniel Jeffries
Daniel Jeffries@Dan_Jeffries1·
The most revealing thing about this AI leadership paper is that it reads less like a vision for innovation and more like a glossy whitepaper for a 21st century East India Company. Every generation of incumbents discovers a new moral vocabulary for why they alone should control transformative technology. In the 90s it was cryptography. We were told strong encryption was too dangerous to spread because terrorists, rogue states, chaos, dual-use, etc. So the US crippled exports, weakened products, slowed adoption, and kneecapped parts of its own software industry. Right up until reality steamrolled the policy and we woke up to its stupidity and then eCommerce, secure communications, software signing, and the modern internet exploded and gave us tremendous benefits. Now the exact same priesthood has returned with AI. - “Dual-use.” - “Strategic advantage.” - “Model distillation.” - “National security.” - “Responsible access.” A few different nouns but mostly the same ones. Same instinct: Centralize control, gatekeep compute, fuse state and corporate power, and call it safety. The funniest part is that this strategy is almost perfectly designed to accelerate the thing they claim to fear. You do not stop a rival superpower (who happens to be the absolute best at scaling energy and manufacturing and who has a choke-hold on rare Earths refinement) from building domestic capability by permanently attempting to strangle them. You create the economic and political incentive for total self-sufficiency. We have already done that as Jensen warned. We went from 100% market to nearly 0%. Huawei is now manufacturing millions of chips. DeepSeek v4 trained on them. They have more energy than the rest of the world combined. Meanwhile, we have activists and anti-economic fools like AOC and Bernie pushing for data center moratoriums and we can't build a single bullet train in 20 years and folks fighting to not expand the energy grid here and new nuclear plants getting tied up in environmental regulation for a decade. The sanctions did the exact opposite of what the hawks wanted. They jumpstarted a moribund, dinosaur of a Chinese chips industry. We basically said to the people who happen control the most powerful manufacturing engine on the planet "we intend to squeeze you." They rightly saw it as an existential threat. The sanctions become the industrial policy. Huawei. SMIC. Domestic lithography. Packaging. Memory. Entire Chinese supply chains that did not exist at serious scale a decade ago now exist precisely because Washington convinced Beijing they had no choice. Brilliant work. So the endgame here is what exactly? 1) Push China into a Manhattan Project for chips and AI. 2) Increase the strategic value of Taiwan even further. 3) Once China reaches self sufficiency that can invade Taiwan and choke off our own super advanced chips where are made there exclusively (and no we don't have even close to enough TSMC factories in Arizona or anywhere else in the world). That's every NVIDIA chip. Every Google tensor chip. Every Apple chip. Every chip in you iPhone and Android phone. Every Amazon chip. The chips in your car and truck and hair dryer and washing machine. 4) Escalate a cold tech war into a permanent civilizational bloc conflict that is likely to turn into a shooting war at one point. 5) Fragment the global software ecosystem. 6) Create American AI aristocracies protected by regulation and compute licensing. And somehow call this “open innovation.” Meanwhile the actual history of software keeps screaming the opposite lesson: Knowledge diffuses, open ecosystems win, developers route around gatekeepers, and attempts to permanently contain computation usually fail. What really jumps off the page is the assumption that a tiny cluster of frontier labs should become quasi-sovereign actors, deciding who gets intelligence, who gets compute, who gets models, and which countries are permitted to participate in the future. Not elected governments. Not open markets. Not open-source communities. A handful of corporations sitting beside the national security state, insisting that concentration of power is necessary to protect democracy. You almost have to admire the audacity.
Anthropic@AnthropicAI

We've published a paper that explains our views on AI competition between the US and China. The US and democratic allies hold the lead in frontier AI today. Read more on what it’ll take to keep that lead: anthropic.com/research/2028-…

English
20
58
298
45.6K
jacob l. shapiro
jacob l. shapiro@JacobShap·
more like a glossy whitepaper for a 21st century East India Company.
Daniel Jeffries@Dan_Jeffries1

The most revealing thing about this AI leadership paper is that it reads less like a vision for innovation and more like a glossy whitepaper for a 21st century East India Company. Every generation of incumbents discovers a new moral vocabulary for why they alone should control transformative technology. In the 90s it was cryptography. We were told strong encryption was too dangerous to spread because terrorists, rogue states, chaos, dual-use, etc. So the US crippled exports, weakened products, slowed adoption, and kneecapped parts of its own software industry. Right up until reality steamrolled the policy and we woke up to its stupidity and then eCommerce, secure communications, software signing, and the modern internet exploded and gave us tremendous benefits. Now the exact same priesthood has returned with AI. - “Dual-use.” - “Strategic advantage.” - “Model distillation.” - “National security.” - “Responsible access.” A few different nouns but mostly the same ones. Same instinct: Centralize control, gatekeep compute, fuse state and corporate power, and call it safety. The funniest part is that this strategy is almost perfectly designed to accelerate the thing they claim to fear. You do not stop a rival superpower (who happens to be the absolute best at scaling energy and manufacturing and who has a choke-hold on rare Earths refinement) from building domestic capability by permanently attempting to strangle them. You create the economic and political incentive for total self-sufficiency. We have already done that as Jensen warned. We went from 100% market to nearly 0%. Huawei is now manufacturing millions of chips. DeepSeek v4 trained on them. They have more energy than the rest of the world combined. Meanwhile, we have activists and anti-economic fools like AOC and Bernie pushing for data center moratoriums and we can't build a single bullet train in 20 years and folks fighting to not expand the energy grid here and new nuclear plants getting tied up in environmental regulation for a decade. The sanctions did the exact opposite of what the hawks wanted. They jumpstarted a moribund, dinosaur of a Chinese chips industry. We basically said to the people who happen control the most powerful manufacturing engine on the planet "we intend to squeeze you." They rightly saw it as an existential threat. The sanctions become the industrial policy. Huawei. SMIC. Domestic lithography. Packaging. Memory. Entire Chinese supply chains that did not exist at serious scale a decade ago now exist precisely because Washington convinced Beijing they had no choice. Brilliant work. So the endgame here is what exactly? 1) Push China into a Manhattan Project for chips and AI. 2) Increase the strategic value of Taiwan even further. 3) Once China reaches self sufficiency that can invade Taiwan and choke off our own super advanced chips where are made there exclusively (and no we don't have even close to enough TSMC factories in Arizona or anywhere else in the world). That's every NVIDIA chip. Every Google tensor chip. Every Apple chip. Every chip in you iPhone and Android phone. Every Amazon chip. The chips in your car and truck and hair dryer and washing machine. 4) Escalate a cold tech war into a permanent civilizational bloc conflict that is likely to turn into a shooting war at one point. 5) Fragment the global software ecosystem. 6) Create American AI aristocracies protected by regulation and compute licensing. And somehow call this “open innovation.” Meanwhile the actual history of software keeps screaming the opposite lesson: Knowledge diffuses, open ecosystems win, developers route around gatekeepers, and attempts to permanently contain computation usually fail. What really jumps off the page is the assumption that a tiny cluster of frontier labs should become quasi-sovereign actors, deciding who gets intelligence, who gets compute, who gets models, and which countries are permitted to participate in the future. Not elected governments. Not open markets. Not open-source communities. A handful of corporations sitting beside the national security state, insisting that concentration of power is necessary to protect democracy. You almost have to admire the audacity.

English
0
0
4
389
Cole McFaul
Cole McFaul@colemcfaul·
A few weeks ago, I joined @AnthropicAI as a Geopolitical Analyst! So excited to join the team at an important juncture in the US-PRC competition in AI. We just published a paper that explains some of our thinking on that competition, why maintaining US AI leadership is critical to ensure the safe and responsible deployment of AI, and why the window of opportunity for policy action is now. Would love to hear your thoughts!
Anthropic@AnthropicAI

We've published a paper that explains our views on AI competition between the US and China. The US and democratic allies hold the lead in frontier AI today. Read more on what it’ll take to keep that lead: anthropic.com/research/2028-…

English
35
38
413
96.5K
jacob l. shapiro
jacob l. shapiro@JacobShap·
🙄
Cole McFaul@colemcfaul

A few weeks ago, I joined @AnthropicAI as a Geopolitical Analyst! So excited to join the team at an important juncture in the US-PRC competition in AI. We just published a paper that explains some of our thinking on that competition, why maintaining US AI leadership is critical to ensure the safe and responsible deployment of AI, and why the window of opportunity for policy action is now. Would love to hear your thoughts!

ART
2
0
6
1.5K
jacob l. shapiro retweetledi
Javier Blas
Javier Blas@JavierBlas·
BREAKING: UAE discloses it’s building an additional second pipeline bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. The new pipeline will be finished in 2027 and will double the country’s export capacity in Fujairah (the current pipeline has a capacity of 1.5-1.8m b/d)
Javier Blas tweet media
English
96
806
2.6K
283K
jacob l. shapiro retweetledi
Hosuk Lee-Makiyama
Hosuk Lee-Makiyama@leemakiyama·
What’s more telling is rather who’s NOT attending the Trump state banquet: - Huawei - BYD, CATL, Geely, SAIC - Tencent, Alibaba - Sinopec For reasons that are obvious. But kudos to them.
李老师不是你老师@whyyoutouzhele

参加 特朗普访华欢迎国宴的中国企业有: 国航、抖音、中金、海尔、工行、联想、福耀玻璃、蓝思科技、中粮、中行、小米、中国商飞、万向等

English
3
12
53
11.4K
jacob l. shapiro retweetledi
Arnaud Bertrand
Arnaud Bertrand@RnaudBertrand·
Interestingly, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov announced today that Putin will visit China imminently, in his first foreign trip of 2026 (and of course right after Trump's visit): vedomosti.ru/politics/news/… Putin and Xi are expected to renew the Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship signed in 2001 (trtworld.com/article/0c6e1b…), and might finally sign the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline deal - which would be one of the largest energy deals in history. So May 2026 will probably see Beijing host both the U.S. and Russian presidents - both seeking a deeper relationship with China. Hard to think of a more concrete illustration of where the center of gravity now lies.
English
36
457
1.9K
79.8K
jacob l. shapiro retweetledi
Jennifer Jacobs
Jennifer Jacobs@JenniferJJacobs·
SCOOP via @CBSNews: U.S. is taking steps to indict Raúl Castro, the 94-year-old former president of Cuba and brother of Fidel, in connection with the downing of planes 30 years ago, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter. The potential indictment — which would need to be approved by a grand jury — is expected to focus on Cuba's deadly 1996 shootdown of planes operated by humanitarian group Brothers to the Rescue. @SarahNLynch and me cbsnews.com/news/us-moving…
English
92
600
1.6K
770.6K
jacob l. shapiro
jacob l. shapiro@JacobShap·
@NguyenMari49148 Indeed once we aren’t worrying about 200 barrel oil bc the strait is closed we should talk about it!
English
1
0
0
39
maria nguyen
maria nguyen@NguyenMari49148·
@JacobShap I wish you could talk more about Japan and Vietnam India involving energy innovation with Canada. There's more brewing in those partnerships
English
1
0
1
34
jacob l. shapiro retweetledi
Hamidreza Azizi
Hamidreza Azizi@HamidRezaAz·
A non-aggression pact between #Iran and Saudi Arabia? 🔹The Financial Times report on Saudi Arabia’s proposal for a regional “non-aggression pact” between Iran and neighboring states is not merely a temporary diplomatic initiative. Rather, it signals Riyadh’s attempt to redefine the Middle East’s security architecture in the aftermath of the U.S./Israeli war on Iran. 🔹The significance of this idea lies less in the pact itself – after all, this is not the first time such an idea is being discussed – than in the strategic logic behind it. Saudi Arabia appears to have concluded that the perpetual cycle of deterrence, limited strikes, and proxy warfare can no longer be managed solely through reliance on the American security umbrella. 🔹The Saudis’ reference to the 1970s “Helsinki process” is also far from accidental. That model was designed precisely to manage competition between hostile blocs, not to fully resolve ideological and geopolitical disputes. In other words, the objective is not to eliminate tensions, but to contain them. 🔹In effect, Riyadh now seems to be moving toward a form of implicit acceptance of a new regional balance of power, in which Iran, despite the heavy costs of the recent war, remains an indispensable actor in the region’s security equations. 🔹This shift also reflects a broader change in the Saudi conception of “stability.” For years, many Arab states defined regional security in terms of containing or weakening Iran’s regional influence. Now, however, the primary priority appears to be preventing Iran-Israel conflict from escalating into a permanent regional war. 🔹From this perspective, the proposal for a non-aggression pact should be understood as part of the broader trend toward the “regionalization” of Persian Gulf security. This process began with the China-mediated Iran-Saudi rapprochement in 2023 and may now enter a more complex phase, i.e., the establishment of rules of conduct for crisis management. 🔹At the same time, comparisons between the Middle East and Cold War-era Europe have serious limitations. Unlike Europe, the region lacks durable institutional structures, clear deterrence lines, and even a minimal consensus over the foundations of a regional security order. Moreover, the role of non-state actors and multilayered conflicts makes the equation far more complex. 🔹More importantly, any such initiative would remain inherently fragile without some degree of mutual understanding between Iran and Israel regarding the acceptable limits of escalation. Any new direct confrontation could easily destroy the entire process of regional de-escalation. 🔹At the same time, the proposal itself demonstrates that the Arab states of the Persian Gulf are increasingly concerned about the spillover of Iran-Israel rivalry into their energy infrastructure, trade corridors, and economic development projects. This concern has now become a major driver of regional policy. 🔹For this reason, even if the idea of a “non-aggression pact” never materializes into a formal agreement, the very fact that it has been proposed carries an important message, that a significant part of the Arab world is no longer seeking to exclude Iran from the region’s security equations, but rather to make patterns of interaction with Tehran more predictable.
English
0
123
348
90.4K
jacob l. shapiro
jacob l. shapiro@JacobShap·
I didn’t come on the scene till 09. His forecasts are long range but I think he’d be the first to admit his views on the Middle East have not panned out so far. One of the reasons I struck off on my own was bc I think forecasts, while useful as a heuristic, are not nearly as valuable as scenarios and updated views
English
1
0
2
34
Kent Clark
Kent Clark@Kevin72127362·
@JacobShap I believe you were a part of the book Next 100 years, with George Friedman. That's where I heard of you all back in 2006. I'm a bit perplexed that he isn't updating his forecasts. For example, the current conflict in Iran. He had the US and Iran being aligned against Russia.
English
1
0
0
27
jacob l. shapiro retweetledi
Louis-Vincent Gave
Louis-Vincent Gave@gave_vincent·
With President Trump’s visit to Beijing, investors are having to ponder whether the US-China relationship is shifting to something less confrontational (obviously it is, since US attempts to isolate China have failed). This is hardly the only consequential shift unfolding in China. Specifically: - China is moving from deflation to inflation - Chinese companies are no longer all about producing somewhat inferior goods at much cheaper prices. Instead, genuine global leaders like CATL, Hesai, BYD… have emerged in various industries. - The Poliburo is no longer encouraging banks to send good money after bad in a bid to build up domestic self suffiency across industrial sectors. Instead, “anti involution” is now the key policy buzz word. - instead of falling, the RMB is now rising. This encourages domestic savings to stay home. - In a historical first, Chinese corporates are now returning more capital to shareholders (through buybacks and dividends) then taking from investors (through IPOs and rights issues)… Any one of these shifts would be important. Together, they make for a potent combination. For more on this, here is a recently published Gavekal report. Constructive feedback (ie: not cheap cliches) welcomed… research.gavekal.com/article/the-ch…
English
27
96
578
93.8K
jacob l. shapiro retweetledi
dylan matthews 🔸
dylan matthews 🔸@dylanmatt·
Very cool new GMO: the Philippines just approved a high-iron variety of rice that could provide 30-50% of the recommended daily allowance of iron. About a quarter of people around the world are anemic, mostly in developing countries isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotech…
dylan matthews 🔸 tweet mediadylan matthews 🔸 tweet media
English
26
174
1.3K
179.9K
jacob l. shapiro retweetledi
Ryan Hass
Ryan Hass@ryanl_hass·
4/ Key points in PRC readout that are not reflected in US readout include: geopolitical framing around transformations in international system; principles surrounding the establishment of US-PRC "constructive strategic stability;" bilateral communications channels; and Taiwan.
English
1
4
42
7.9K