Perp City

For a moment, substitute the notion of “believing in short AGI timelines” for: “acknowledging the idea of AGI as an ill-defined thing that will nonetheless probably exist within a strategically relevant timeframe, the pursuit of which will produce importantly capable artifacts along the way, whose arrival will be even sooner than the so-called ‘AGI,’ and so we don’t really need to quibble all that much about exact AGI definitions and timelines, because the mega-capable artifacts already kinda resemble ‘AGI,’ have national security implications, and seem like they’re going to keep improving rapidly, so functionally we just have to accept that we live in AGI world now, regardless of whether one’s personal definition of AGI is satisfied in 2028, 2035, or, indeed, 2026.” If this was your view—and it is mine—then it is not so much about short timelines to AGI as it is “short timelines to the importantly useful artifacts produced along the path to AGI, so capable that maybe in some ways they blend into AGI.” Thus “Mythos” or “the latest frontier model” can be substituted for “AGI” in many debates about timelines. The rhetoric of “we should sell China more chips” or “AI is the next internet platform business and it should we regulated exactly like prior waves of internet platform businesses, which is to say ‘basically not at all’” pivots not so much on short timelines to AGI but instead short timelines to models that *matter,* national-security-wise. The fatal flaw in the 2024-era accelerationist view, epitomized by Jensen, was that models would never matter in this way; or at least, that you should not think so much about the world in which models mattered in that way. It is much easier to justify “doing what we have been doing” if you don’t believe neural networks will ever truly matter to national security. Basically all AI debates hinge not so much on “AGI timelines” but on “will LLMs ever matter, really, to national security.” The near-term existence of LLMs with national-security-relevant capabilities can therefore be thought of as, to borrow a phrase, an inconvenient truth.

U.S. PROBES POSSIBLE INSIDER TRADING IN OIL FUTURES U.S. regulators are investigating suspicious oil trades placed just before Trump’s Iran policy shifts, including billion-dollar positions minutes ahead of key announcements that moved markets. The probe focuses on volume spikes across major exchanges, raising concerns traders may have used non-public information to profit from sharp swings in crude prices.

Tentative signs -- with a lot of emphasis on tentative-- of easing in the European physical oil market. Dated Brent is falling below $120, and lots of offer today on the key trading window (compared to overwhelming bids in recent days). Physical premia also dropping a bit.

BREAKING: US oil prices fall back below $100/barrel in a large reversal on the day.

The myth of the Strait of Hormuz closure. 80% (16.25M bpd) of the 20M barrels per day supply of the Strait of Hormuz has already been replaced or been rerouted. 🇸🇦 7M: Saudi Reroute 📈 4.25M: Pre-War Surplus 🇨🇳 2M: China Safe-Passage 🇦🇪 1.5M: UAE ADCOP reroute 🇮🇷 1M: Iran Jask Bypass 🇮🇳 400k: India Safe-Passage Deficit? Only 3.8M bpd and even just 2 more tankers per day would reduce the deficit to 0. With 1.3B and 500 millions barrels in combined reserves for China & India respectively, they have a 3-4 month reserves before they run into a deficit. This is why stocks are back at nearly ATH again. Opening the Strait of Hormuz has now merely turned into an afterthought.