Not only steamrolled but, and at the fault of local BOS, hand-tied under NDAs. Nothing will give voters a worse distrust of leadership than being willingly gagged. Oh and in some cases, for personal gain: https://www.richmonder.org/a-chesterfield-employee-who-helpe...

Yea, a lot of the opposition is around these deals being cut at 3:00 in the morning in secret meetings in a shady, smoke-filled room, deliberately avoiding public input and scrutiny. Even if it's not grift and corruption, it certainly looks like grift and corruption.

Haha

desperate and unoriginal

isn't that all of OpenAI

"It's fair to say that 80 percent of the world's problems involve old men hanging on who are afraid of death and insignificance, and they won't let go," - Barak Obama

Pacing the frontier is a front to get federal regulators/evaluators involved that they can then point to open source usage and cry "look they're not being safe!"

Yes all they had to do was invest 600 billion in US investment

Or just say they would.

This right here

Seem to "falling short of high standards" in a lot of places: https://www.12onyourside.com/2026/10/05/state-regulators-all...

Precisely. No I don't want your shoved in my face search which is crap and gemini and maps.

> the productivity payoff from AI remains a forecast rather than an observation

As someone who's read all of his books and experienced the generations being studied I'd say he's been spot on and is extremely knowledgeable. One study that does not propose alternative views and cites "selling a lot of books" comes off to me as someone with an agenda. No thanks.

>One study that does not propose alternative views

Why is proposing "alternative views" required for a critique? If we're discussing what caused diseases pre-germ theory, does that mean we can't point out the flaws in miasma theory because no "alternative views"?

>and cites "selling a lot of books" comes off to me as someone with an agenda. No thanks.

Well clearly you only read the first two sentences (or first paragraph?), because it cites multiple studies:

>These are not just our data or my opinion. Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews converge on the same message2–5. An analysis done in 72 countries shows no consistent or measurable associations between well-being and the roll-out of social media globally6. Moreover, findings from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study, the largest long-term study of adolescent brain development in the United States, has found no evidence of drastic changes associated with digital-technology use7. Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University, is a gifted storyteller, but his tale is currently one searching for evidence.

Not to mention "selling a lot of books" isn't even the critique, it's that it offers a seductive explanation:

"... because Jonathan Haidt is telling a scary story about children’s development that many parents are primed to believe"