Christopher Koopman @ckoopman

If your thing is underestimating AI progress, pivot to not doing that

Pope Leo XIV has sent the world a message with his new encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas.” Unfortunately, it’s not the message the world needs to hear, @abundanceinst CEO @ckoopman writes in The Washington Star. What huge AI danger is he missing? Find out: twstar.com/p/pope-leos-ai…

It's incredible to see MTS doing better reporting on the major civil liberties issues related to "age verification" than the entire MSM

MTS @MTSlive

2 days ago

Why mandatory age verification for AI is the wrong policy response @taylordbarkley, director of federal government affairs at The Abundance Institute: "That is the equivalent of the government saying, 'We need your papers before you can use computers.'" "AI is computing. It'll

2 19 66 18K 5

Solar is impressive. Mankind currently adds ~600GW per year (or about 120GW firm) by installing ~2.7m panels *every day*. In order for Valar Atomics to exceed this rate, we only need to install 13 of our reactors per day to match. And our goals are much more ambitious than 13.

“Do not be afraid of marriage and of forming a family” 🚀

EL PAÍS @el_pais

4 days ago

📺 TV EN DIRECTO | El Papa bendice a las parejas a punto de casarse y llama al matrimonio: “Si antes dije no tengáis miedo en pensar en una vocación, el matrimonio también es una vocación. No tengáis miedo del matrimonio y de formar una familia” social.elpais.com/icvh4f

104 847 6K 3.0M 578

Take 90 seconds today to walk with Travis on the path toward energy enlightenment.

Travis Fisher @ts_fisher

4 days ago

Yes, America’s power grid is awesome 💪🏼 But speed to power and customer preferences matter too What if new customers would rather not deal with monopolies? Here’s the policy paper @Edison_Electric doesn’t want you to read cato.org/briefing-paper… Freedom is the American way 🇺🇸

10 22 80 20K 25

In the 1980s, the US produced 80% of global enriched uranium. Today that number is zero -- and we rely on Russia instead! @ScottNolan & @generalmatter are solving this crisis; he’s jumpstarting America's nuclear renaissance, and makes us all more bullish on its scale & speed.

American Optimist @AmOptimistShow

5 days ago

EPISODE 157: Scott Nolan on the AI Energy Crisis & America's Nuclear Renaissance @JTLonsdale sits down with @ScottNolan Lessons from SpaceX early days; building @generalmatter; why we rely on Russia; how we fell behind China; nuclear power in space; and more! (00:00) Episode

13 16 126 875K 55

✅Energy Milestone Achievement! Next stop: powering the nation. The @AntaresNuclear reactor at @INL achieved criticality, the first major hurdle in powering the United States with domestic nuclear energy. INL continues to lead the nation and the world in nuclear innovation and this breakthrough paves the way for the future of reliable baseload power.

Office of Nuclear Energy | US Department of Energy @GovNuclear

6 days ago

🎉 WE HAVE CRITICALITY! 🎉 On June 4, 2026, at around 12:30 MDT, @AntaresNuclear’s Mark-0 microreactor achieved initial criticality at @INL. It is the first nuclear test reactor to go critical under @ENERGY’s Reactor Pilot Program. Congratulations to Antares on reaching this

36 196 1K 152K 86

AI is facing the same policy choice that defined the internet era. @AdamThierer, senior fellow at R Street Institute and a 30-year tech policy historian: "When I was growing up in the '70s, it was a big deal when we got a telephone that was a different color and had a longer cord. That was innovation back in the '70s." "Then the internet came along, we decided to have a firm firewall between that old era of regulated monopoly and the new world of digital technologies. We allowed them to be born free of government top-down control." "And we saw this flowering of entrepreneurialism and creativity and culture because of that policy choice." "Are we going to allow it to continue to be a technology of freedom? Or are we gonna bottle it all up and centralize?"

I will be going live on @MTSlive at 1:45ET / 10:45PT to discuss the dangers of nationalizing AI. Here’s link to tune in: x.com/MTSlive/status…

I still don’t know what to make of Brad. He starts by telling me he’s consulted “very experienced lawyers” and within minutes is repeatedly begging me to ask an LLM. Appeals to authority are always extremely strange when debating legislative text. But this is bonkers.

@MattBGilliland How about running massive scrapes without any filtering or checking, especially after public awareness of CSAM contamination in common datasets (see, e.g., LAION-5B)?Could that support a willful blindness argument?

Brad is begging us to ask our LLMs. He asked his model whether federal law requires labs to scrub their data. That’s the procedural question, and it isn’t the one in dispute. A request. Give your LLM the following prompt: “Under U.S. federal law: (1) If child sexual abuse material is present in an AI lab’s training dataset, is the lab’s knowing possession of it already a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A? (2) Can the willful blindness doctrine establish that knowledge for a lab that runs a web-scale scrape and chooses not to check? (3) Once a lab knows the material is in its dataset, is continued possession a crime? (4) Does that prohibition apply regardless of whether a state separately requires scrubbing?” The honest answer is yes to all four. Possession is possession. A training corpus on a lab’s servers is possessed by that lab, and knowingly possessing CSAM is already a federal crime.

Partial government ownership of private companies is regulatory capture on steroids. BUT...... If the AI labs wanted to donate shares into every kid's Trump Account....

Jeff Stein @jstein_star

6 days ago

Wall Street Journal confirming our reporting today, with some new details that gov shares in OpenAi could go to Trump account-type program by @AmrithRamkumar & co

8 26 81 138K 30

@americans4ri Every red-highlighted sentence in the below @americans4ri two-pager, which discusses @JayObernolte and @RepLoriTrahan's AI bill in red is either overbroad, misleading, partly false, or false. Full explanations in next post.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

@bradrcarson Brad, I’m begging you to use the following prompt in your LLM. Same conversation as the one you screenshotted earlier. Please post its response here.

Christopher Koopman @ckoopman

6 days ago

Brad is begging us to ask our LLMs. He asked his model whether federal law requires labs to scrub their data. That’s the procedural question, and it isn’t the one in dispute. A request. Give your LLM the following prompt: “Under U.S. federal law: (1) If child sexual abuse

1 0 7 1K 0

Possession is possession. A training corpus on a lab’s servers is possessed by that lab, and knowingly possessing CSAM is already a federal crime under. A law telling labs to scrub it is a command not to possess it, and federal law already says that. The scienter point doesn’t help you. A scraper who won’t check is courting claims of willful blindness, and the moment a lab knows, keeping it is a crime. There is no lawful window to hold it. So a state scrubbing mandate adds screening paperwork. But it is a far cry from any additional protection. The conduct is already illegal, and a general screening law survives 121(c)(1), and at most an AI-specific procedural rule is preempted. Nothing here makes CSAM lawful to keep, and nothing here leaves a child unprotected.

Brad is going around claiming that preemption is coming for local rules on data centers, with Monterey Park held up as the example. This isn’t true, and the text is unambiguous. Sec 121 preempts only a law “specifically regulating the development of any artificial intelligence model.” The findings say the same thing. The stated purpose is to preempt “State regulation specifically targeting artificial intelligence model development.” The bill defines “development” as the acts of a developer: determining training objectives, training, fine-tuning, modifying a model’s weights, and evaluating before deployment whether it clears safety or capability thresholds. Building, powering, or zoning a data center appears nowhere in that definition. A company operating a data center and leases out compute is not a developer under the bill, because the definition requires both setting the training objectives and directing the training. On top of that, Sec 121(c)(1) expressly preserves “any State law or regulation of general applicability.” A data center moratorium is a land use rule. It applies to the building regardless of what runs inside, whether that is AI training, crypto mining, or ordinary cloud storage. Now look at the measure Brad uses. The ballot language prohibits data centers citywide to protect air quality, water, and public health, and to prevent spikes in electricity and water rates. It doesn’t mention AI model development anywhere. It’s about as clean an example of a generally applicable local land use law as exists, and nothing in this bill preempts it. The voters who passed it would not being overridden by anything in here. There’s one place a preemption argument might have footing. The word “specifically” is used but not defined. If a city wrote an ordinance that singled out data centers because they’re training AI, a developer would have an argument that the ordinance specifically regulates development. A neutral data center ban doesn’t get there. The general applicability carve-out and the developer definition both cut the other way. Monterey Park’s measure is neutral. It bans all data centers for environmental and infrastructure reasons. So this is the one example the argument cannot reach. This is the second time today this account has steered the public toward a reading of this preemption that the text does not support. The first was CSAM. Brad and ARI claim that scrubbing child sexual abuse material from training data a development-level mandate the bill would strip from states. But possessing that material is already a federal crime, which means no lab may lawfully hold it in a training set no matter what any state does or doesn’t require. A general criminal prohibition on that material is a law of general applicability, which is clearly left untouched. The protection they claim the bill removes is secured by federal criminal law that this bill does not touch. Both arguments are built the same way. Each one stretches “specifically regulating the development of an AI model” to cover something that sits outside it, and each one only holds up if you leave out the general applicability carve-out written into the same section. The CSAM version leaves it out. The data center version leaves it out and then points at Monterey Park, which the carve-out squarely protects. This is a pattern. This is an organization with lawyers. A general applicability carve-out is not buried, and it is not hard to understand. When a group steers the public toward reading a preemption clause to reach already-criminal conduct and a local land use vote, twice, while leaving out the one sentence in the text that answers both, the charitable explanation gets hard to hold. At that point the framing reads like an effort to be believed by people who have not opened the bill. There are real questions about this bill. But the argument has to start with what the text says. Read Section 121, all of it, and then we can have the real fight.

You and your organization have spent the entire day making stuff up. Don’t get mad at me for calling you out. Own it.

@bradrcarson “Trust me, I talked to lawyers but won’t tell you which ones” is a heck of an argument. Tell me exactly how I’m wrong, please. Knowingly possessing CSAM is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. 2252A.