Welcome to a new chapter in AI surveillance, America.
President Trump has issued an executive order that places the onus on the federal government’s most secretive agency, the National Security Agency (NSA), to assess whether products from private companies are safe for public use. Intelligence agencies will set and evaluate crucial benchmarks, overseeing new AI models within a 30-day timeframe. This means private entities, along with the AI companies themselves, will have to wait in uncertainty until a decision is reached.
This move hasn’t garnered enthusiastic support from conservatives or the “based community,” and even MAGA supporters appear divided. David Sachs, who previously directed AI and Cryptocurrency efforts in the White House, made an attempt to halt Trump’s initiatives regarding AI education but faced setbacks that reduced regulation. In a recent post on X, he felt compelled to clarify his stance and underscored his disagreements with right-wing accelerationists.
It’s really questionable—can we instruct these machines without diminishing our humanity?
It seems that even those closest to Trump are at odds with one another.
Meanwhile, Congress is attempting to shape an OpenAI framework. They are looking to collaborate with the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s AI Standards and Innovation Center. The intention here is for monitoring and testing to occur under the guidance of well-established institutions that facilitate partnerships between the government and private sector. This way, besides AI companies, other experts and stakeholders outside the intelligence community could also participate in the testing process.
However, bipartisan disagreements abound, and upcoming midterm elections could further shift the balance of power. Various proposals are being debated in Congress, including a significant bipartisan bill about American leadership in AI, hinging on the intricate dynamics of Congressional politics. This is compounded by some hesitation from Louisiana’s Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson regarding the reauthorization of the House AI Task Force, influenced by the Democratic Party’s general disfavor towards the legislation.
Will the House and Senate manage to come to a consensus on AI model development that Trump will endorse? Probably not, but discontent regarding AI is growing among populists across party lines. It’s likely that key members, whether principled or ambitious, will reach a decision by November.
Which suggests that Americans might not look to their elected leaders for clarity on AI issues.
And, speaking of guidance, there’s no indication that U.S. Christians, nor those around the globe, are inclined to unify their theological differences and support the Pope as a singular authority on AI and technology.
This lack of holistic guidance from major political and spiritual authorities is quite concerning.
Still, maybe this is a blessing in disguise. The true challenge posed by AI lies not in its potential destruction of humanity but in its ability to dilute our essence. There seems to be a push towards transforming all of creation and even us into a singular, distorted image.
Ironically, intensifying our aversion to technology while condensing all dislike into a small elite could heighten the risks to humanity, making a catastrophic outcome more likely.
Time to reclaim responsibility
With the threats posed by both excessive AI surveillance and all-out regulatory conflicts, perhaps we should explore whether Bitcoin can offer ordinary people a more balanced, decentralized path forward.
Amidst the tumult within the cryptocurrency landscape, the argument for Bitcoin in the AI era is straightforward. If dismantling these machines isn’t an option, can we direct the ongoing development towards enhancing, rather than undermining, human dignity?
The answer seems affirmative; however, a climate of fear regarding technological dystopia and widespread aversion to organized religion has boxed many into a corner where viable solutions seem elusive.
That’s unfortunate, as Bitcoin represents a sophisticated technology enabling individuals, with minimal additional knowledge, to create markets and institutions that safeguard themselves and their communities, without relying on super-intelligent machines or government financial structures.
Given the tendency for superintelligent machines and government financial systems to converge into a control mechanism that promotes uniformity, it appears increasingly essential for individuals to consider stepping beyond their comfort zones and adopting Bitcoin, at least in some capacity.
This encourages me to continue discussing the importance of embracing technology wisely. While some titles I’ve authored cover these themes, the usage of Bitcoin needs to extend far beyond the written word. My commitment to this topic motivates me to actively advocate for a pragmatic approach.
Will Bitcoin solve all our challenges? Probably not. But it could redirect our focus towards safeguarding the essence of humanity, possibly paving a road to resolution, and even salvation.
