LESSWRONG
LW

Slowing Down AIAI
Personal Blog

88

MAGA speakers at NatCon were mostly against AI

by Remmelt
8th Sep 2025
2 min read
15

88

This is a linkpost for https://www.theverge.com/politics/773154/maga-tech-right-ai-natcon
Slowing Down AIAI
Personal Blog

88

MAGA speakers at NatCon were mostly against AI
5Richard_Ngo
4GeneSmith
1Seth Herd
31Mass_Driver
5Seth Herd
1Matrice Jacobine
14Thomas Kwa
6habryka
5Raemon
8ChristianKl
4habryka
-10Ebenezer Dukakis
8Ben Pace
3Kaj_Sotala
2Seth Herd
New Comment
15 comments, sorted by
top scoring
Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 2:11 AM
[-]Richard_Ngo4h52

A related post I wrote recently.

+1 to ChristianKl's observation below though that Geoffrey Miller is unrepresentative of MAGA because he's already part of the broader AI safety community.

Reply
[-]GeneSmith17h40

Subtle dig at Balaji from Bannon? Interesting.

Reply
[-]Seth Herd8h12

Do we need to ally with these people? Jesus.

Reply
[-]Mass_Driver7h3121

Yes, that's exactly right, we do. That's what it means to be an ally rather than a friend. America allied with the Soviet Union in World War 2; this is no different. When someone earnestly offers to help you literally save the world, you hold your nose and shake their hand.

Reply
[-]Seth Herd6h50

I agree. The "jesus" was halfway a joke about the religious ties. And halfway steeling myself for that handshake.

Reply
[-]Matrice Jacobine6h*1-4

Ally on what issues exactly? What I'm getting from the article is they want anti-AI protectionism, consistent with their positions on immigration and trade. Good enough for Remmelt and the StopAI crowd, but I don't expect anti-techs (of either the deep green or national conservative type) to support technical safety, global priorities research, AI welfare, AI x Animals, acceleration of defensive technologies, or governance to counter the intelligence curse (indeed Miller fearmongers about "UBI-based communism"!).

Reply
[-]Thomas Kwa3h145

Maybe you're reading some other motivations into them, but if we just list the concerns in the article only 2 out of 11 indicate they want protectionism. The rest of the items that apply to AI include threats to conservative Christian values, threats to other conservative policies, and things we can mostly agree on. This gives a lot to ally on, especially the idea that Silicon Valley should not be allowed unaccountable rule over humanity, and that we should avoid destroying everything to beat China. It seems like a more viable alliance than with the fairness and bias people; plus conservatives have way more power right now.

  • Mass unemployment
  • "UBI-based communism"
  • Acceleration to “beat China” forces sacrifice of a "happier future for your children and grandchildren"
  • Suppression of conservative ideas by big tech eg algorithmic suppression, demonetization
  • Various ways that tech destroys family values
    • Social media / AI addiction
    • Grok's "hentai sex bots"
    • Transhumanism as an affront to God and to "human dignity and human flourishing"
    • "Tech assaulting the Judeo-Christian faith..."
  • Tech "destroying humanity"
  • Tech atrophying the brains of their children in school and destroying critical thought in universities.
  • Rule by unaccountable Silicon Valley elites lacking national loyalty.
Reply
[-]habryka4h63

support technical safety, global priorities research, AI welfare, AI x Animals, acceleration of defensive technologies, or governance to counter the intelligence curse (indeed Miller fearmongers about "UBI-based communism"!).

FWIW, I approximately don't think any of those things matter compared to just not building AGI. Other people can disagree of course, but please do not count me as someone who thinks those things are of comparable importance!

Reply
[-]Raemon6h*50

Part of the deal of being allies if you don't have to be allies about everything. I don't think they particularly need to do anything to help with technical safety (there just need to be people who understand and care about that somewhere). I'm pretty happy if they're just on board with "stop building AGI" for whatever reason.

I do think they eventually need to be on board with some version of the handling the intelligence curse (I didn't know that term, here's a link ), although I think in a lot of worlds the gameboard is so obviously changed I expect handling it to be an easier sell.

Reply1
[-]ChristianKl5h8-5

Geoffrey Miller is already a member of this community in good standing. 

Reply
[-]habryka4h48

I like some of what Geoffrey does, but I do think at various points he has violated enough norms of reasonable discourse (especially on Twitter) that I wouldn't consider him in "good standing".

Reply
[+]Ebenezer Dukakis2h-10-15
[-]Kaj_Sotala5h30

I think that didn't tag/notify him but @geoffreymiller does, in case he wants to participate in the discussion.

Reply
[-]Seth Herd4h20

Thanks. I'd better stay out of this until I know who that is :)

Reply
Moderation Log
More from Remmelt
View more
Curated and popular this week
15Comments

Excerpts on AI:

Geoffrey Miller was handed the mic and started berating one of the panelists: Shyam Sankar, the chief technology officer of Palantir, who is in charge of the company’s AI efforts.

“I argue that the AI industry shares virtually no ideological overlap with national conservatism,” Miller said, referring to the conference’s core ideology. Hours ago, Miller, a psychology professor at the University of New Mexico, had been on that stage for a panel called “AI and the American Soul,” calling for the populists to wage a literal holy war against artificial intelligence developers “as betrayers of our species, traitors to our nation, apostates to our faith, and threats to our kids.” Now, he stared right at the technologist who’d just given a speech arguing that tech founders were just as heroic as the Founding Fathers, who are sacred figures to the natcons. The AI industry was, he told Sankar, “by and large, globalist, secular, liberal, feminized transhumanists. They explicitly want mass unemployment, they plan for UBI-based communism, and they view the human species as a biological ‘bootloader,’ as they say, for artificial superintelligence.” 
...
Their hostility varied wildly: some acknowledged that AI was not going away and could have some societal benefit if harnessed correctly, while others claimed that further AI development would lead to “civilizational suicide.” But nearly all the speakers expressed a deeply, emotionally entrenched suspicion against the tech industry.

Even the threat of Chinese AI dominance was not enough to sway them, nor was the fact that Trump himself had signed off on funding projects like Stargate. “The state’s own rationale for AI acceleration is quite explicit about it: ‘We must beat China and grow the economy,’” said Michael Toscano, the director of the Family First Technology Initiative, during his Thursday talk. “These, of course, have significant implications for the future of Americans, but the message is one of a barren life: ‘To beat China, you must be willing to part ways with everything — including a happier future for your children and grandchildren.’”
...
The animus toward AI at NatCon was intense enough to prompt some formerly heretical ideas, such as joining forces with labor unions. “[They] have a long history of confronting technological change and should be treated as sources of experience and knowledge, rather than a historical dead weight force for anti-modernization,” argued Toscano at one point, adding that if Trump managed to bring the right wing and the unions together, “he would go down in history as one of America’s greatest presidents, if not the man who saved the future.”
...
Unfortunately, by the end of NatCon, no one seemed to agree with Sankar. “Yes, artificial intelligence could have tremendous upsides,” Steve Bannon said during closing remarks. “But you’re looking into a bottomless pit. It’s a downside that nobody understands and nobody can articulate. And the last thing I want is a bunch of folks on the spectrum in Silicon Valley — who I’m not sure are even that dedicated to the United States of America, because they got these weird people talking about network systems and ‘we’re a network and not really a country’ — I don’t want them making decisions for the American people.”

The crowd burst into applause.