Dave Karpf
@davekarpf.bsky.social
Political Communication Professor at GWU. I write a lot about the history and future of tech and politics. Best known for that one time I made fun of Bret Stephens.
Davekarpf.substack.com
Davekarpf.substack.com
Matt Levine (@matt-levine.bsky.social) keeps writing about AI in precisely the same tone he wrote about crypto and NFTs.
"This is, you know. This is fine."
www.bloomberg.com/opinion/news...
"This is, you know. This is fine."
www.bloomberg.com/opinion/news...
November 5, 2025 at 7:09 PM
Matt Levine (@matt-levine.bsky.social) keeps writing about AI in precisely the same tone he wrote about crypto and NFTs.
"This is, you know. This is fine."
www.bloomberg.com/opinion/news...
"This is, you know. This is fine."
www.bloomberg.com/opinion/news...
I just got an email declaring "Web 4.0 is dawning."
No it isn't. Shut up. What is wrong with you? Have some fucking self-respect.
No it isn't. Shut up. What is wrong with you? Have some fucking self-respect.
November 4, 2025 at 6:58 PM
I just got an email declaring "Web 4.0 is dawning."
No it isn't. Shut up. What is wrong with you? Have some fucking self-respect.
No it isn't. Shut up. What is wrong with you? Have some fucking self-respect.
My working hypothesis is that the reason Matt Yglesias was booed off of Bluesky isn’t because Bluesky is too leftist or too toxic.
It’s because he sucks.
It’s because he sucks.
November 4, 2025 at 12:48 PM
My working hypothesis is that the reason Matt Yglesias was booed off of Bluesky isn’t because Bluesky is too leftist or too toxic.
It’s because he sucks.
It’s because he sucks.
Y’know that old viral “firebombing a Walmart” tweet?
That’s Bjorn Llomborg on global public health, for nearly three decades.
He never runs out of suggestions for things that governments could fund instead of fighting climate change, and he also never gets around to advocating for funding them.
That’s Bjorn Llomborg on global public health, for nearly three decades.
He never runs out of suggestions for things that governments could fund instead of fighting climate change, and he also never gets around to advocating for funding them.
November 1, 2025 at 12:56 PM
Y’know that old viral “firebombing a Walmart” tweet?
That’s Bjorn Llomborg on global public health, for nearly three decades.
He never runs out of suggestions for things that governments could fund instead of fighting climate change, and he also never gets around to advocating for funding them.
That’s Bjorn Llomborg on global public health, for nearly three decades.
He never runs out of suggestions for things that governments could fund instead of fighting climate change, and he also never gets around to advocating for funding them.
Ultimately their argument is that base-mobilization doesn't work, and the only way to win elections is to appeal to swing voters by talking about "kitchen table issues."
Dems just need "a more appealing agenda, set of priorities, and message."
Literally zero awareness that it is not 1993 anymore.
Dems just need "a more appealing agenda, set of priorities, and message."
Literally zero awareness that it is not 1993 anymore.
October 28, 2025 at 5:03 PM
Ultimately their argument is that base-mobilization doesn't work, and the only way to win elections is to appeal to swing voters by talking about "kitchen table issues."
Dems just need "a more appealing agenda, set of priorities, and message."
Literally zero awareness that it is not 1993 anymore.
Dems just need "a more appealing agenda, set of priorities, and message."
Literally zero awareness that it is not 1993 anymore.
They've decided the problem is "the groups." (This, again, is a warmed-over diatribe that we've been hearing from centrist pundits for almost a year.)
Dem donors, staffers, and interest groups are all too well-educated and liberal. They focus on "identity and cultural issues" and climate. Waaaa!
Dem donors, staffers, and interest groups are all too well-educated and liberal. They focus on "identity and cultural issues" and climate. Waaaa!
October 28, 2025 at 4:51 PM
They've decided the problem is "the groups." (This, again, is a warmed-over diatribe that we've been hearing from centrist pundits for almost a year.)
Dem donors, staffers, and interest groups are all too well-educated and liberal. They focus on "identity and cultural issues" and climate. Waaaa!
Dem donors, staffers, and interest groups are all too well-educated and liberal. They focus on "identity and cultural issues" and climate. Waaaa!
Here's where we get into serious "derp" territory.
"Voters perceptions of the two parties have changed since 2012." (True)
But *why* have the perceptions changed? Is it because of policy stances, or because of massive changes in the media system?
"Voters perceptions of the two parties have changed since 2012." (True)
But *why* have the perceptions changed? Is it because of policy stances, or because of massive changes in the media system?
October 28, 2025 at 4:40 PM
Here's where we get into serious "derp" territory.
"Voters perceptions of the two parties have changed since 2012." (True)
But *why* have the perceptions changed? Is it because of policy stances, or because of massive changes in the media system?
"Voters perceptions of the two parties have changed since 2012." (True)
But *why* have the perceptions changed? Is it because of policy stances, or because of massive changes in the media system?
Elected Dems have moved to the left since 2012! (true, but largely attributable to retirements and electoral defeats of some old moderates, particularly in the Senate.)
And Republicans have, uh, only gotten more extreme in some ways? They've totally moderated on issues like abortion. (Wait. What?)
And Republicans have, uh, only gotten more extreme in some ways? They've totally moderated on issues like abortion. (Wait. What?)
October 28, 2025 at 4:33 PM
Elected Dems have moved to the left since 2012! (true, but largely attributable to retirements and electoral defeats of some old moderates, particularly in the Senate.)
And Republicans have, uh, only gotten more extreme in some ways? They've totally moderated on issues like abortion. (Wait. What?)
And Republicans have, uh, only gotten more extreme in some ways? They've totally moderated on issues like abortion. (Wait. What?)
Okay, let's get into the text...
Here are their bullet point recommendations: Talk about the economy! Don't talk about immigrants or climate or "social issues!" Criticize the ultra-wealthy, but in a very-not-socialist sort of way!
This is... just popularism? Didn't we already do this?
Here are their bullet point recommendations: Talk about the economy! Don't talk about immigrants or climate or "social issues!" Criticize the ultra-wealthy, but in a very-not-socialist sort of way!
This is... just popularism? Didn't we already do this?
October 28, 2025 at 4:31 PM
Okay, let's get into the text...
Here are their bullet point recommendations: Talk about the economy! Don't talk about immigrants or climate or "social issues!" Criticize the ultra-wealthy, but in a very-not-socialist sort of way!
This is... just popularism? Didn't we already do this?
Here are their bullet point recommendations: Talk about the economy! Don't talk about immigrants or climate or "social issues!" Criticize the ultra-wealthy, but in a very-not-socialist sort of way!
This is... just popularism? Didn't we already do this?
One question that always comes up when I do these hate-read review threads is "Daaaaave, why are you doing this to yourself?"
Adam finally gets an answer out of me:
Adam finally gets an answer out of me:
October 21, 2025 at 5:02 PM
One question that always comes up when I do these hate-read review threads is "Daaaaave, why are you doing this to yourself?"
Adam finally gets an answer out of me:
Adam finally gets an answer out of me:
And this is where it again becomes clear that (a) they have no model of the political world and (b) their entire social world is built out of discussion board LARPing debates.
They imagine that humanity COULD rally to the cause, so long as our author-heroes sound the alarm effectively enough.
They imagine that humanity COULD rally to the cause, so long as our author-heroes sound the alarm effectively enough.
October 16, 2025 at 6:09 PM
And this is where it again becomes clear that (a) they have no model of the political world and (b) their entire social world is built out of discussion board LARPing debates.
They imagine that humanity COULD rally to the cause, so long as our author-heroes sound the alarm effectively enough.
They imagine that humanity COULD rally to the cause, so long as our author-heroes sound the alarm effectively enough.
“Someday humanity will have nice things, if we all live, but it's not worth committing suicide in an attempt to gain the power and wealth of gods in this decade.”
This seems like a good general rejoinder to the current crop of techbaron supervillain-types, even if we remain otherwise unconvinced.
This seems like a good general rejoinder to the current crop of techbaron supervillain-types, even if we remain otherwise unconvinced.
October 16, 2025 at 5:35 PM
“Someday humanity will have nice things, if we all live, but it's not worth committing suicide in an attempt to gain the power and wealth of gods in this decade.”
This seems like a good general rejoinder to the current crop of techbaron supervillain-types, even if we remain otherwise unconvinced.
This seems like a good general rejoinder to the current crop of techbaron supervillain-types, even if we remain otherwise unconvinced.
Ell — and I cannot stress this enough — oh ell.
October 16, 2025 at 12:28 AM
Ell — and I cannot stress this enough — oh ell.
Pretty sure I could write a 10,000 word academic article just unpacking all the misdirections in this one paragraph.
Wrong about intelligence, wrong about tech development, wrong about the political economy of AI, etc.
These arguments should never have escaped discussion board containment.
Wrong about intelligence, wrong about tech development, wrong about the political economy of AI, etc.
These arguments should never have escaped discussion board containment.
October 15, 2025 at 9:51 PM
Pretty sure I could write a 10,000 word academic article just unpacking all the misdirections in this one paragraph.
Wrong about intelligence, wrong about tech development, wrong about the political economy of AI, etc.
These arguments should never have escaped discussion board containment.
Wrong about intelligence, wrong about tech development, wrong about the political economy of AI, etc.
These arguments should never have escaped discussion board containment.
Okay here they do have a good point.
In chapter 6 (“we’d lose”) they discuss how disembodied superintelligent AI could harm us in the real world.
And the basic answer is “LOL Marc Andreessen is so fucking dense he’d probably just give it whatever it wants.”
That’s… terrifyingly realistic.
In chapter 6 (“we’d lose”) they discuss how disembodied superintelligent AI could harm us in the real world.
And the basic answer is “LOL Marc Andreessen is so fucking dense he’d probably just give it whatever it wants.”
That’s… terrifyingly realistic.
October 15, 2025 at 8:42 PM
Okay here they do have a good point.
In chapter 6 (“we’d lose”) they discuss how disembodied superintelligent AI could harm us in the real world.
And the basic answer is “LOL Marc Andreessen is so fucking dense he’d probably just give it whatever it wants.”
That’s… terrifyingly realistic.
In chapter 6 (“we’d lose”) they discuss how disembodied superintelligent AI could harm us in the real world.
And the basic answer is “LOL Marc Andreessen is so fucking dense he’d probably just give it whatever it wants.”
That’s… terrifyingly realistic.
Christ, what nonsense.
Their whole theory hinges on how you define intelligence. And defining in intelligence is, y’know, REALLY FUCKING COMPLICATED.
Their solution? Just make up a simple definition and hope no one notices.
Their whole theory hinges on how you define intelligence. And defining in intelligence is, y’know, REALLY FUCKING COMPLICATED.
Their solution? Just make up a simple definition and hope no one notices.
October 15, 2025 at 1:59 AM
Christ, what nonsense.
Their whole theory hinges on how you define intelligence. And defining in intelligence is, y’know, REALLY FUCKING COMPLICATED.
Their solution? Just make up a simple definition and hope no one notices.
Their whole theory hinges on how you define intelligence. And defining in intelligence is, y’know, REALLY FUCKING COMPLICATED.
Their solution? Just make up a simple definition and hope no one notices.
“Humanity could still decide not to build it.”
Calling this in advance: my biggest issue with this book is going to be their complete ignorance of how humanity *decides* things.
Their theory of social behavior is built out of discussion-board debate club. Likely to be absolutely disqualifying.
Calling this in advance: my biggest issue with this book is going to be their complete ignorance of how humanity *decides* things.
Their theory of social behavior is built out of discussion-board debate club. Likely to be absolutely disqualifying.
October 15, 2025 at 1:49 AM
“Humanity could still decide not to build it.”
Calling this in advance: my biggest issue with this book is going to be their complete ignorance of how humanity *decides* things.
Their theory of social behavior is built out of discussion-board debate club. Likely to be absolutely disqualifying.
Calling this in advance: my biggest issue with this book is going to be their complete ignorance of how humanity *decides* things.
Their theory of social behavior is built out of discussion-board debate club. Likely to be absolutely disqualifying.
“Some aspects of the future are predictable(…); others are impossibly hard calls. Competent futurism is built around knowing the difference.”
…look, this is unfair. My book about tech futurism doesn’t come out for another year.
But, trust me, that is NOT what “competent futurism” is about.
…look, this is unfair. My book about tech futurism doesn’t come out for another year.
But, trust me, that is NOT what “competent futurism” is about.
October 15, 2025 at 1:26 AM
“Some aspects of the future are predictable(…); others are impossibly hard calls. Competent futurism is built around knowing the difference.”
…look, this is unfair. My book about tech futurism doesn’t come out for another year.
But, trust me, that is NOT what “competent futurism” is about.
…look, this is unfair. My book about tech futurism doesn’t come out for another year.
But, trust me, that is NOT what “competent futurism” is about.
Okay… so…
A thing they do well in the introduction is speak with admirable clarity at the sentence level.
That ain’t nothing.
But a thing they do poorly is speaking to the reader as though the reader was an idiot.
A thing they do well in the introduction is speak with admirable clarity at the sentence level.
That ain’t nothing.
But a thing they do poorly is speaking to the reader as though the reader was an idiot.
October 15, 2025 at 1:21 AM
Okay… so…
A thing they do well in the introduction is speak with admirable clarity at the sentence level.
That ain’t nothing.
But a thing they do poorly is speaking to the reader as though the reader was an idiot.
A thing they do well in the introduction is speak with admirable clarity at the sentence level.
That ain’t nothing.
But a thing they do poorly is speaking to the reader as though the reader was an idiot.
Next up on my reading list.
…I am already regretting this choice.
…I am already regretting this choice.
October 14, 2025 at 11:27 PM
Next up on my reading list.
…I am already regretting this choice.
…I am already regretting this choice.
It's a real failure of Blueskyism that Chris Cillizza was never bullied off of this site.
October 9, 2025 at 10:42 PM
It's a real failure of Blueskyism that Chris Cillizza was never bullied off of this site.
ME: "Okay, I need to focus on book edits. No more blogging until the last few chapter edits are done."
KEVIN KELLY: "AI firms shouldn't pay authors for copyright violations. Authors should pay for the privilege of being included in the AI training data!"
kevinkelly.substack.com/p/paying-ais...
KEVIN KELLY: "AI firms shouldn't pay authors for copyright violations. Authors should pay for the privilege of being included in the AI training data!"
kevinkelly.substack.com/p/paying-ais...
October 7, 2025 at 5:21 PM
ME: "Okay, I need to focus on book edits. No more blogging until the last few chapter edits are done."
KEVIN KELLY: "AI firms shouldn't pay authors for copyright violations. Authors should pay for the privilege of being included in the AI training data!"
kevinkelly.substack.com/p/paying-ais...
KEVIN KELLY: "AI firms shouldn't pay authors for copyright violations. Authors should pay for the privilege of being included in the AI training data!"
kevinkelly.substack.com/p/paying-ais...
Matt Yglesias has a deeper dislike for climate activists than he does for the Trump regime.
It’s pathetic.
It’s pathetic.
September 30, 2025 at 11:41 AM
Matt Yglesias has a deeper dislike for climate activists than he does for the Trump regime.
It’s pathetic.
It’s pathetic.