18 Burst results for "Ostp"

White House Seeks Public Comments on Crypto Strategy

Trustnodes

00:17 sec | 4 d ago

White House Seeks Public Comments on Crypto Strategy

"10 a.m. Friday, January 27th, 2023 White House seeks public comments on crypto strategy. The White House office of science and technology policy OSTP is seeking input on the holy of government effort to develop a crypto strategy.

Ostp White House
"ostp" Discussed on Bitcoin Magazine Podcast

Bitcoin Magazine Podcast

04:36 min | 3 months ago

"ostp" Discussed on Bitcoin Magazine Podcast

"Within our borders first. Yeah, so divided government for one usually means like legislative sclerosis, right? You're not going to expect much big, I think, packages to pass. They do I'd be surprised. But then just sort of means they're probably going to be much big legislation. That's like my default is up. I know there is one particular bill that's been in the works for a while that is going to be outside chance. It comes up for a vote and it could come up in the lame duck. I don't follow that I'm not doing the width. Exactly, and people in the D.C. had ecosystem kind of get that better than me. But yeah, I was like, it's an outside chance. That's something you like that could be passed. And in general, and you could probably see more executive actions in the intervening time that could be problematic for certain parts of the industry. There's been executive wars. Obviously the big disaster order that they did a whole bunch of these quarks coming out from the executive branch, that I think, across the board as you had to generalize the vibe. Was blatantly negative towards the whole industry with like pockets of like surprisingly neutral to positives. Like paragraphs. Sorry. And so it depends what your bias is. You're looking for any grades of hope. You're like, oh wow, they actually recognize the value of layer gas mining in the EPA and OSTP report on digital assets, energy consumption. And that's like, you know, for being at the same time, they also cite basically debris and digit economists like 50 times. So in the net, it was more on the negative side than on the positive side, but there were surprising wins in some of the policy space. Big legislative action. I don't see taking place now. There is an interesting I was not going to post the outs like tactically seek. Like Bitcoin politically, you know, doesn't have a tribe, right? There's no implicit alignment between the Republicans and immigrants, Bitcoin. I think just sort of practically speaking the current political mood has made kind of Republicans generally more favorable to Bitcoin than Democrat. I think that has sort of been the temporary access of alignment. So that net net, right? And I think you could see slightly more positive things coming out of a Republican House. But I don't think they'd be cast, right? Shifting, maybe the toad or some community hearings or certain amendments that get softened in on the margin. But I'd say for crypto more generally, right? It's not good that you have these effectively shadow banks. Just like, you know, taking each other out in public. And precipitating overall, this disorder, I think the market cap is falling to a certain point where major regulators don't see it as like a major financial risk in terms of spillovers.

OSTP sclerosis D.C. EPA Republican House
"ostp" Discussed on Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

03:37 min | 4 months ago

"ostp" Discussed on Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

"Additional carbon free generation to match or exceed the additional electricity load of these facilities. No such requirement exists for any other industry in the U.S., period. If miners can't do this, Congress might consider legislation to limit or eliminate the use of high energy intensity consensus mechanisms for crypto asset mining. Of course, no such rule exists for any other extractive industry in the U.S., like gold mining, even though gold mining uses a comparable amount of much dirtier energy. Effectively, the OSTP is asking that miners be forced to meet a completely impossible standard. Again, one that isn't asked of any other industry. And if they can't meet that, they are asking Congress to regulate mining out of existence. Overall, the report is laced with a profound neo malthusian attitude. Even though it gives lip service to net zero goals like electrify everything, which would require a massive build out of power and transmission, implying that we will have an energy abundant future. The fact that the U.S. government is so intent on marginalizing an industrial sector that accounts for around .5% of electrical generation, much of it otherwise going unused in places like West Texas should give anyone pause. If the government was really that confident in the energy abundant, everything electrified green transition, why would they be worried about .5% of current generation. If their net zero trajectories are met, the electrical sector will be greening at a rapid clip anyway, and with it purchasers of grid power. Unlike virtually any other industry, Bitcoin is already fully electrified. So it can benefit from the envisioned greening of the grid. So why is a large buyer of energy that is fully electrical, location agnostic, interruptible, and portable, a threat to the green transition. Could it be that the government doesn't believe their own incantations around net zero? Could it be that their motives have more to do with using ESG to politicize the electricity sector and determine politically acceptable uses of energy like an electrical version of operation choke point, reading the report and in particular the section on minors using renewables, it is very clear that the current administration views electricity as a good that only politically favored firms should have access to. If you were able to choke point electricity, they won't stop with Bitcoin mining. They will move on to demanding that utilities shutter electricity used by politically disfavored entities like firearms manufacturers, religious institutions, and right wing educational facilities. The government already politicizes access to finance and in a ghastly partnership with big tech, politically determines who has access to Internet infrastructure. Why should electricity be any different? The totalizing state doesn't know any restraint. Obviously their political enemies should be deprived of any resources, whether financial, communications, or literal energy. Bitcoin just so happens to straddle all three of those sectors. From a practical point of view, a domestic ban on proof of work would be counterproductive. I've already pointed out that policymakers in Western countries concerned about Bitcoin's emissions should convince miners to stay domestic. A ban would be massively counterproductive to the U.S.'s ability to influence both Bitcoin and the network's emissions trajectory. If the U.S. were to successfully ban industrial Bitcoin mining, miners elsewhere, almost all of them dirtier than U.S. miners would immediately receive a massive dividend. Naively assuming the 30 to 40% of Bitcoin mining, the current U.S. total comes to a complete halt, non U.S. miners would almost immediately be producing 42 to 66% more units of Bitcoin with their same level of exertion. U.S. miners experienced this when China banned the vast majority of domestic mining and ex China miners were rewarded a bumper crop.

OSTP Bitcoin U.S. Congress West Texas U.S. government government China
"ostp" Discussed on Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

02:41 min | 4 months ago

"ostp" Discussed on Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

"This isn't true. For instance, Aspen creek is just one example of a minor that focuses on mining with renewables with additionality, meaning that they are bringing new power to bear and only consuming part of it. It assumes wrongly that electricity is geographically fungible. That is, it can be transmitted anywhere at no cost instantly. In reality, power needs transmission and ends up trapped in pockets throughout the grid. Miners buying this power when it is negatively or cheaply priced are directly improving the economics of these renewable installations and making it easier to justify building more. And it assumes wrongly that there are no ancillary benefits to having a flexible load on grid. This isn't true either. Miners are a uniquely responsive load that can enhance grid flexibilization. Evermore renewable grids need massive flexibility from both the supply and demand side. Miners can do this better than any other load resource period. There's a great paper explaining this, more flexibility equals more renewable penetration. Indeed, a heavily renewable grid must be overbuilt to several times its nameplate capacity because wind and solar are so intermittent. So in the glorious net zero future, there will necessarily be a massive overbuild of renewables. Having day one buyers for those renewables, especially location agnostic ones, which can travel to the generation source, fundamentally improves the economics of these build outs. The report implies a scarce zero sum world where the available power is fixed. This isn't the case, nor is it even consistent with statements made earlier in the very same report. To achieve a real emissions reduction, tons of renewables will need to be built and grid flexibility will need to increase. Bitcoin miners directly and indirectly help achieve both of these objectives. Refuses to even take a guess on future energy trajectories. While the OSTP house is willing to repeat debris unscientific fever dreams about Bitcoin's emissions with no issues whatsoever, they oddly draw the line at projecting future energy usage. This is a really odd move because doing a back of the envelope projection for Bitcoin's future energy demands is really very simple and should be within reach of the scientists at the OSTP. Refusing to propose any model at all helps the OSTP anti crypto case because it leaves future crypto energy demands wide open to the imagination. Most people, if not guided by reasonable models around future usage, tend to panic, relying on linear extrapolations of prior energy usage growth into the future. Most people, however, are ignorant of the effect of the halving, the declining growth rate of price, the effect of rising energy prices on consumption, and the real world constraints to price growth and fees. These models provided generously by the industry, which the government has chosen to disregard show that even under the most optimistic

Aspen creek OSTP Bitcoin
"ostp" Discussed on Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

05:41 min | 4 months ago

"ostp" Discussed on Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

"This is a very real constraint on the amount of investment miners are willing to make. The reality on the ground couldn't be more different from the apparent apocalypse, the OSTP is forecasting. The current status quo in ercot is a much slower deployment pace, given worsened minor economics, a weaker capital markets environment and higher energy prices that further reduce the appetite of minors to build. It's also worth noting that the report assumes that energy is geographically fungible, as if a minor active in West Texas is depriving a household in Dallas of electricity. This isn't the case. There is limited transmission from renewable rich West Texas, the DFW triangle, explaining why power prices so frequently diverge between the two regions. Electricity decays with distance, absent further high voltage transmission and ercot CRE Z capable of carrying 15 gigawatts is already at full capacity. You will inevitably develop local pockets of energy that simply go unused. Texas is a perfect case study showing how Bitcoin miners can surgically target these low priced energy pockets. This is a category of energy I have dubbed non rival because it doesn't compete with other load centers at all. It's only accretive, increasing the economic incentive to build more. The debate really does suffer from a shortage of data that is true, but the government isn't exactly taking a welcome stance and inviting miners to collaborate with them in data sharing initiatives. Instead, their lamb basting the sector, using junk data from fake academics or data that is simply erroneous and threatening to ban the entire industry. If they had bothered to engage with actual miners with a knowledge of the Texas grid, they wouldn't be making such mistakes. Can't win approach to miners using renewables. Probably the most frustrating portion of the report concerns miners utilizing stranded natural gas or mining with renewables. Basically, the report dismisses all the efforts of miners to decarbonize their operations, laying out extremely narrow conditions in which mining with renewables might be considered acceptable. Suffice to say, I've never encountered the government insisting on conditions. This stringent to any other buyer of grid electricity. Given that the report considers a full ban on mining in the U.S., the dismissal of miners genuine efforts to decarbonize should be deeply alarming. The OSTP sets them up to fail with a can't win approach. Number one, dismisses flare gas mitigation. Despite a token admission of its usefulness, the report generally dismisses the merits of mining with otherwise flared or vented natural gas. First, the authors betray ignorance of how flared gas mitigation actually works. On page 24, they claim that mining with otherwise flared gas doesn't affect emissions one way or another. This is false. Miners incorporating flared gas are able to combust the methane with a near perfect combustion efficiency. Whereas generic flaring is low efficiency, especially in windy conditions. This is well documented in the literature, thus with flaring methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas ends up vented anyway. Bitcoin miners are able to fully combust the methane and convert it to energy and CO2. This is a direct improvement from an emissions perspective. It's not merely emissions neutral, like the report maintains. The report also claims that the methane ought to be used for other uses, like hydrogen production, or that it should be exported via pipeline. This is a completely markets blind claim. If the methane were market relevant, it would have been piped out. Many of these installations, the ones most suitable for flared gas mitigation are off grid and have no pipeline infrastructure. Methane is a byproduct of oil extraction, and it is not always the case that there are pipelines ready to go near a well pad. Nor is it necessarily economical to construct them.

OSTP ercot West Texas Texas Dallas government U.S.
"ostp" Discussed on Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

05:14 min | 4 months ago

"ostp" Discussed on Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

"In Texas are aggressively going after cheap energy in West Texas particularly, which is a consequence of a massive renewable build out, driven by federal subsidies. Paired with a lack of local demand and insufficient long distance transmission to load centers. Bitcoin miners in Texas are scooping up negatively or zero priced energy and opting into demand response programs, such that they are offline during grid scarcity events. In short, they pay for cheap power that no one else will pay for, thus improving the economic profile of new renewables, and they don't compete with households when energy is scarce. There isn't a better energy buyer you could hope for. The report, however, ops to site erroneous figures in order to imply that miners are imminently taking over the Texas grid. They do this in multiple places. Here's one passage. Texas has a peak summer electricity demand of about 76 gigawatts and current crypto asset mining activity of about two gigawatts. Ercot has about 17 gigawatts of crypto asset facilities that are in the process of connecting to the grid. With an expected 5 to 6 gigawatts of new demand in the next 12 to 15 months, equivalent to the power demand of the city of Houston, ercot may also see an additional 25 gigawatts over the next decade. While many of these projects may not be completed, the prospect of up to 25 gigawatts of new electricity demand from crypto asset mining equivalent to a third of existing peak electricity demand in Texas raises potential challenges for maintaining electricity reliability, especially with rising power demands and extreme temperatures over recent years. These numbers are huge, 17 gigawatts of power is an enormous quantity, as they helpfully point out 25 gigawatts would be equivalent to 5 houstons. The only problem with this section is that the data is completely false. Urquhart does not have 17 gigawatts of crypto data centers that are in the process of connecting to the grid. There will most likely not be 5 to 6 gigawatts of Bitcoin mining data centers connected in ercot in the next 12 to 15 months. Ercot will not see 25 gigawatts, 1.7 current Bitcoin's worth connected over the next decade. This 17 gigawatts number in particular refers to non binding non secured requests made speculatively to ercot. Nowhere near that amount of power actually stands to come online. Every Texas based minor I connected with told me that the OSTP report numbers as described are erroneous and the quoted 17 gigawatts figure from ercot is deeply misleading to confirm I reached

Texas ercot Bitcoin West Texas Houston Urquhart OSTP
"ostp" Discussed on Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

04:37 min | 4 months ago

"ostp" Discussed on Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

"From verified academics with a track record of publishing on proof of work. Never mind that many of the articles aren't peer reviewed. GKE are cited in The White House report, as well as the CCRI directly, shockingly, the CCRI report referenced in the OSTP paper, energy efficiency and carbon footprint of proof of stake blockchain protocols was actually commissioned by the proof of stake blockchain avalanche. Avalanche was founded by longtime proof of work antagonist and mean gun so rare. And the protocol aggressively markets itself on the basis of its supposed sustainability. Commissioning reports from the likes of gks to greenwash avalanche is part of the normal playbook for proof of stake blockchains. It is remarkable that The White House would cite such a clearly conflicted report though. I am not ultimately that concerned about rather transparent grift. What does trouble me is the OSTP ignoring all data originating with the crypto industry, as if it's tainted by capitalism, yet embracing data that is clearly biased in the opposite direction. In this case, by consultants selling anti proof of work, pro proof of stake reports to pro proof of stake blockchain clients. As for the rigor of their work, it's questionable. It goes without saying that the CCRI reports cited in the OSTP report, footnotes 40 and 67, as well as repeatedly in the appendix table a one are completely non academic. Stole collaborates with debris on the infamous E waste article. The report cites the 2022 revisiting Bitcoin's carbon footprint featuring de vries and each of GKE, which is published as commentary in jewel, non peer reviewed. Energy consumption of cryptocurrencies beyond Bitcoin cited in the report also appears in Juul as commentary. Citing Maura at all. There's not a lot of things that can shock me here, but the inclusion of Mora at all as a citation really did surprise me. It's well known as probably the worst paper ever written on the topic of Bitcoin's emissions impact. Entitled Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2°C more at all is a running joke in the mining space. More at all 2018 is part academic fraud, part performance art. It was written by undergraduates, Maura himself reportedly didn't actually contribute to the paper. Just lent his name so that it would get published. As a class exercise in how to get a paper published, the paper itself, if you care to read it, is completely ludicrous.

CCRI OSTP White House blockchain Avalanche Juul Bitcoin Maura Mora
"ostp" Discussed on Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

02:53 min | 4 months ago

"ostp" Discussed on Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

"Uninitiated observer like peer reviewed scientific papers. In fact, they are non reviewed blog posts in scientific garb. You'd think The White House office of science policy might be exercising more caution and perform a cursory review of the resources they are citing. Maybe they don't care. This commentary trick is also done by debris collaborators, dollar store fur clawson and stole. For instance, in their 2020 article. Of course cited in the OSTP report. It's a common way to launder sciencey claims into the scientific literature and press without actually facing any scrutiny for those claims. Journalists almost never verify that the articles aren't actual scientific journal articles. As for digi economists, it's even more straightforward. It's just not science. It was even rejected as a valid citation by Wikipedia for the energy section of the Bitcoin page. Thanks to level 39 for pointing this out. As a hobby website blog, it is not rigorous. When fact checked by industry experts, it is frequently shown to be erroneous. It's estimates are consistently far, far above those issued by more rigorous academics, but The White House office of science is much more permissive and is willing to accept debris amateur assertions as fact. Devries cited 16 times in the document. Did economists cited 23 times, collectively this makes debris the number one source for The White House report. The far more authoritative, less exaggerated and genuinely academic and neutral, taking no industry financing, Cambridge center for alternative finance is cited ten times. Take table a four in the appendix, which purports to compile GHG emissions for a number of cryptocurrencies from an array of academics of the 24 data points cited fully 58% are debris digit economist. One is more at all 2018, basically tinfoil hack climate truth or more on that later. And one derives from the questionable stole class in and gala store for. So that's 16 out of 24 cited data points in the table that are extremely questionable or completely meritless. I can't overstate the absurdity of Morris paper in particular. To address the substance of debris would take an entire dissertation because this strategy is to generate a huge volume of material and claims, all of which take far more energy to rebut than they do to dream up. There's three broad claims The White House relies on for de vries dig economist. Energy consumption estimates, emissions estimates and E waste estimates. Each has been dealt with elsewhere capably, but I'll address them briefly. Number one, energy consumption. De vries's guesses come in way, way higher than is more credible peers. Look at the table a one in the appendix. Debris comes in at 144 terawatt hours per year for Bitcoin versus Cambridge's 88 terawatt hours per year. For eth, devries guesses 93.9 terawatt hours per year versus Kyle MacDonald's 22.9 for the same time period. His estimates are consistently far, far higher than competing ones by other researchers. He biases the estimate upwards for Bitcoin by assuming that the average asic

White House OSTP clawson Cambridge center for alternati digi Devries Wikipedia de vries Morris De vries Kyle MacDonald Bitcoin devries Cambridge
"ostp" Discussed on Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

02:52 min | 4 months ago

"ostp" Discussed on Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

"I can tell that the authors have very limited experience with the debates around proof of work or are being lazy in their approach and citing folks Willy nilly because they cite more at all 2018, genuinely unforgivable. And have an extremely heavy reliance on de vries dig economist, as well as stole classen and dollar store for. The more reference is shocking. It's a bit like reading a scientific government report on the history of the moon landing and finding a reference to a conspiracy website claiming that the entire thing was faked. To get to the bottom of Bitcoin's energy consumption, likely future trajectory and emissions profile, you will need to do some original work. This report contains very little. We can ignore everything else since post merge, only Bitcoin will remain as a meaningful proof of work blockchain. The battle lines are already drawn. We have data from hostile academics that are highly partisan and conflicted in many cases, and then data from industry groups like BMC. The report glowingly cites the former as if the data, which includes massive uncertainties, which I'll delve into later, is settled science. It's not. If OSTP wanted to make a mark on the debate instead of just repeating debris, they should propose some new data of their own. The White House totally ignores any contributions from industry subject matter experts. So this is to be expected. The OSTP doesn't cite any of the great work on mining done by coin shares. They don't cite Bitcoin net zero by Ross Stevens nigga in myself. Even though they ask for help modeling Bitcoin's future energy and emissions profile. They don't cite arcane research, even though the OSTP covers many of the topics where arcane demonstrates helpful expertise. They don't cite any of the data aggregated by the Bitcoin mining council, which aggregates sustainability data for half of the Bitcoin mining network. Now you might say, will the OSTP can't just rely on partisan data and commentary written by industry participants. They adhere to a higher standard of academia and rigor. That is where you'd be wrong. As I will further demonstrate below, the OSTP is relying on the following in this report. The personal blogs of a Dutch Central Bank employee with a widely documented antipathy to the subject matter and clear anti crypto motive. Non peer reviewed content published in the commentary sections of journals like jewel and nature climate change. Non peer reviewed journal content published by authors with a serious commercial conflict of interest. Non peer reviewed journal content written by undergraduates thrice debunked in its own journal, widely considered junk science.

OSTP Bitcoin Willy nilly Ross Stevens BMC Bitcoin mining council White House Dutch Central Bank
"ostp" Discussed on The Coin Bureau Podcast: Crypto Without the Hype

The Coin Bureau Podcast: Crypto Without the Hype

07:34 min | 4 months ago

"ostp" Discussed on The Coin Bureau Podcast: Crypto Without the Hype

"Not go there. Ironically, the authors underscore the U.S. government's role in facilitating technological innovation in the private sector. If you're wondering just how innovative the government can be, check out our recent video about whether modification. Link will be in the description, of course. Now, factual conspiracies aside, the authors jump straight to the steps that the administration will take to preserve the peculiar dynamic between the public and private sectors. The first step will be to instruct the office of science and technology policy or OSTP to quote develop a digital asset's research and development agenda. If you watched our aforementioned video about one of The White House's reports, you'll know that the OSTP isn't all that scientific. Meanwhile, the aforementioned NSF will quote back social science and education research that develops methods of informing, educating and training, diverse groups of stakeholders. Sounds good on the surface, but they're always seems to be something bad lurking down below, with these crypto initiatives. Now, the second step will be to instruct the Treasury Department and other financial regulators to quote provide innovative U.S. firms developing new financial technologies with regulatory guidance, best practices sharing and technical assistance. This could actually be a very good thing if done right, because institutional investors have been itching for the regulatory clarity they need to invest in cryptocurrency. The regulatory uncertainty caused by Ethereum's transition to proof of stake is particularly concerning to both retail and institutions alike. The third step will be to instruct various environmental regulators to, you guessed it, quote, track digital assets environmental impacts, develop performance standards as appropriate and provide local authorities with the tools resources and expertise to mitigate environmental harms. The authors add that, quote, opportunities exist to align the development of digital assets with transitioning to a net zero emissions economy and improving environmental justice. This makes me wonder if they really will ban proof of work and whether they'll use some unscientific justification to do so. Now the fourth and final step is interesting, as it involves, quote, establishing a standing forum to convene federal agencies, industry, academics, and civil society to exchange knowledge and ideas that could inform federal regulation, standards, coordinating activities, technical assistance and research support. If the getting of all hands on deck to address cryptocurrency is not a sign that the government are threatened by crypto adoption, I don't know what is. Anywho, the 5th set of crypto policy recommendations relate to the status of the United States as a leader of the status quo of global finance, as well as the country's financial competitiveness. Incredibly, the authors commence by saying the quiet part out loud. Quote today, global standard setting bodies are establishing policies, guidance and regulatory recommendations for digital assets. The United States is working actively with its partners to set out these policies in line with our goals. In other words, unelected international organizations such as the financial action task force or fat F act in accordance with the interests of the United States. What's even more telling is that the authors explain that the United States has a quote valuable opportunity to partner with countries still developing their digital asset ecosystems. In other words, the U.S. is positioned to ensure that its dominance of the global financial system continues. To ensure all of the above, the administration will take the following steps. First, it will leverage the power of international organizations like the fat F to ensure quote U.S. values find their way into cryptocurrency. Note this is code for financial control and financial surveillance, not freedom and liberty. Second, the administration will instruct various government agencies to partner with similar government agencies around the world. Oddly enough, this step does not include any mention of cryptocurrency. So maybe it's just a way of sneaking in some more global governance stuff. Third, the administration will help developing countries develop their digital asset infrastructure. If the IMF's help is anything to go by, this aid will come with lots of strings attached. Fourth, the administration will quote help cutting edge U.S. financial technology and digital asset firms find a foothold in global markets for their products. This step also doesn't mention crypto, but I have a feeling this is a reference to regulated stablecoin issuers like circle. If you missed the memo, circle has started releasing stablecoins for other Fiat currencies, notably the Euro. I reckon it would be in the interest of the United States for circle to provide its digital currency infrastructure to countries in Europe. It's certainly in the interest of BlackRock, which backs circle. More about BlackRock in the description. Anyhow, the 6th set of policy recommendations relate to the favorite topic of anti crypto critics, and that's illicit activity in cryptocurrency. The authors begin by revealing that the United States has been the entity pushing for KYC around the world. The authors then say something extremely concerning, and that's while our efforts have strengthened the U.S. financial system, digital assets, some of which are pseudonymous and can be transferred without a financial intermediary, have been exploited by bad actors. If you don't understand why this is so concerning, consider that every single cryptocurrency is pseudonymous and that every single cryptocurrency can be transferred without a financial intermediary. They're not talking about privacy coins here, they're talking about all cryptos. This rhetoric is consistent with the fat F's endgame of killing crypto by labeling any crypto transaction or activity that doesn't involve a regulated intermediary as high risk. And over time, the fat F will pressure countries to cease providing services to individuals and institutions who are high risk. As expected, the authors go on to give examples of crypto being used by bad actors for illicit purposes, and I couldn't help but notice that they didn't provide any statistics as concrete evidence. That's probably because they know that only 0.15% of all crypto transactions are related to illicit activity. For context, between two and 5% of all the transactions are related to illicit activity. This is despite all the extensive KYC and AML that's been enforced around the world by the fat F as a matter of fact, it seems that the fat F's so called recommendations have done next to nothing to reduce illicit finance over the last 30 years. All they've done is create a multi-billion dollar industry of compliance companies and justified lots of

OSTP U.S. Ethereum U.S. government Treasury Department NSF White House Anywho BlackRock IMF Europe
"ostp" Discussed on WTOP

WTOP

01:31 min | 4 months ago

"ostp" Discussed on WTOP

"In Clinton and 70 out in culpeper. Captain 2022 on WTO, we now have fewer than 50 days until the midterm elections. Today, Republicans released their campaign blueprint as they try to retake the U.S. House, WTO P's Mitchell Miller today on the hill. We've created a commitment to America. House minority leader Kevin McCarthy, who hopes to become House speaker outlining GOP plans at an event in Pittsburgh. He says they'll address issues like inflation and the rising crime. That means your community will be protected. Your law enforcement will be respected. At a separate event in Pennsylvania, House majority leader steny Hoyer charged that Republicans plans are vague and noted former president Trump promised for years to get an infrastructure Bill. It never got done. Lawmakers from both parties will be intensifying their campaigns in the coming weeks as the midterms get closer. On Capitol Hill, Mitchell Miller, WTO P news. Federal headlines is presented by periton doing the can't be done for national security. I'm Peter M surley and here are your top headlines from federal news network. The Senate confirms the president's pick to head up The White House office of science and technology policy or OSTP are the pro Boca is the former director of darpa, as well as anist. She's the first woman immigrant or person of color to serve as OSTP director. And the Defense Department is boosting housing allowances in 28 high cost areas to help service members cope with increasing housing costs, additionally, DoD says it will assist military

Mitchell Miller WTO OSTP culpeper House Kevin McCarthy U.S. House steny Hoyer Clinton Peter M surley GOP Pittsburgh Trump America Pennsylvania Capitol Hill Senate darpa Boca Defense Department
"ostp" Discussed on WTOP

WTOP

01:33 min | 4 months ago

"ostp" Discussed on WTOP

"Unique challenges for first responders putting out fires and rescuing people after crashes. But some local first responders are being trained with the goal of saving valuable seconds if you're a part of one of those emergencies. General Motors has been putting on training exercises around the country too, for instance, show rescuers how to safely cut into a GMC Hummer EV to free someone trapped inside. The company's latest stop, dominion raceway in thornburg, Virginia, where responders also heard about a misconception that water is dangerous around an EV battery during a fire. Water and we say in all of our rescue documents, copious amounts of water need to be applied. GM engineer Joseph McLean says overall we're hoping to put to rest many of the fears and dispel some of the misconceptions about electrified vehicles John Aaron WTO P news. Federal headlines is presented by periton doing the can't be done for national security. I'm Peter M surley and here are your top headlines from federal news network. The Senate confirms the president's pick to head up The White House office of science and technology policy or OSTP are the former director of darpa as well as anist. She's the first woman immigrant or person of color to serve as OSTP director. And the Defense Department is boosting housing allowances in 28 high cost areas to help service members cope with increasing housing costs, additionally, DoD says it will assist military commissaries reduce the price of groceries on base. For more on these stories, go to federal news network dot

OSTP dominion raceway GM Joseph McLean John Aaron thornburg Peter M surley Hummer GMC Virginia darpa Senate Defense Department DoD
"ostp" Discussed on CoinDesk Podcast Network

CoinDesk Podcast Network

05:06 min | 5 months ago

"ostp" Discussed on CoinDesk Podcast Network

"Breakdown to support the show. As you might imagine, this produced some real hot takes from lots of different directions. One of the things that I thought was most interesting is that this was sort of a Rorschach test, in which people saw whatever they wanted to see and headline meme the hell out of it. To dichotomous versions of this were represented by Bitcoin magazine's tweet, breaking White House says U.S. Congress may consider legislation to ban proof of work Bitcoin mining. And Jason Williams, breaking news. White House report states proof of work Bitcoin mining can yield positive results for climate. So obviously, if a report is generating that divergent response, it likely has to be more nuanced than it might initially seem. Now in terms of really getting two ends of the spectrum on this report, let's look to Dylan leclerc's one side of the argument. He writes, it's not about climate change. It's about complete and utter control. Don't give them one inch. Stop pandering to the ESG narrative. It is utterly moronic. If you don't like how someone is using energy, pay a higher price than them. Mining enables the build out of base load for the grid and can dynamically shut off during surge demand. No other industry operates similarly. Hash rate will continue to march higher. No amount of hysteric screeching about climate change will stop the next block from being mined. Education is good, yes, but stop pandering to their disingenuous narratives. Pandering to communists is the real waste of energy. The sides are being drawn, you are either in favor of living in a digital panopticon where every action of your life is monitored and controlled or you're not. Money is the final boss. If we don't reclaim stateless money for the digital age, all else is lost. Now this is certainly about the hottest of hot takes out there, but frankly, it's not totally out of sync with a growing narrative in the U.S.. ESG has become a new target for the American right, and this is probably something we'll talk about at some point in the future. However, it wasn't the only type of take that we saw from bitcoiners. Troy crossed summed up the report this way. OSTP recognized Bitcoin's potential role in stabilizing grids incentivizing renewable energy and mitigating methane. They note non energy related tradeoffs between proof of work and proof of stake. They note how much they don't know about everything. This is very different from the Warren Huffman purely political posturing and fear mongering. It would be a huge mistake to equate this report with the FUD were all more familiar with. What comes out of this report? A call for more study. Some tensions there around data gathering, but the idea is to get more info to make sound policy. This is a conservative impulse and a good one. Agencies states and industry will be invited into the info gathering. And yes, once we have a baseline understanding of industries environmental and energy market impacts, then they are going to want to benchmark and set out standards. That will be dicey. But bitcoiners, I'd humbly suggest need to get in on those conversations. The report maps out administration's goals and concerns with regard to crypto and mining. We know from the report exactly what they're worried about. This makes our job relatively easy. We show the worries are unfounded. We tick all the boxes. No, this isn't bending the knee. This is the process whereby fear mongering and political wind baggy meets the reality of policy. Fact finding, industry getting a seat at the table and articulating why the wind bags are wrong and on the ground reality is wildly different. Sorry, but I'm optimistic. OSTP report looks bad and is vaguely threatening. In absolute terms, parts of it are still uninformed or misinformed, parts badly framed. In relative terms, from the letters that prompted all of this, it represents a shift in a very good truth responsive direction. Hats off to the civil servants and scientists who learned a whole new field in a matter of months and did their level best in a sea of information with everyone bag pumping to inform policy for the administration. I think Troy there is dead on. And it relates to what I've said over and over again about these regulatory conversations. If engaged with anything resembling good faith, they inevitably come out better than the FUD and memeified version of what politicians think about crypto right now. Some took it even farther than Troy. Derek Ross writes The White House's full report on proof of work in Bitcoin is extremely bullish. They mention how proof of work mining can help the USA meet climate goals with flared gas and stabilize the electric grid. They're trying to determine if the positives outweigh the energy use. We know they do. Joe Carlos Ari says every major Bitcoin influencer going on national TV should be hammering the point that The White House report found that proof of work mining could yield positive results for climate change. Tell our story not theirs. David zell, the founder of the Bitcoin policy institute writes just in from The White House OSTP. Crypto asset mining that installs equipment to use vented methane to generate electricity for operations is more likely to help rather than hinder U.S. climate objectives. Indeed, the part that he's talking about is one of the positive notes in the report is pointing out the growing field of mining using methane capture from landfill, agricultural waste and natural gas flaring. In terms of climate impact, methane is estimated to be about 80 times as potent as carbon dioxide over a 20 year time frame, meaning that methane capture should be a high priority in the goal to reduce emissions. The report explains quote, climate policy aligned with achieving net zero emissions would have zero methane venting and zero methane flaring. A combination of regulation and technological innovation can help realize this vision. Crypto asset

Bitcoin magazine White House Dylan leclerc Warren Huffman Jason Williams USA Troy Bitcoin OSTP FUD Congress Derek Ross Joe Carlos Ari David zell Bitcoin policy institute
"ostp" Discussed on The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

08:42 min | 5 months ago

"ostp" Discussed on The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

"Exist without air conditioning. And people are going to be running their air conditioner for more. Higher to get the temperature from a higher point down to a comfortable zone for more days of the year. That's going to use up a lot of electricity. That electricity is going to be coming in part from burning coal or other fossil fuels. Have completely switched over. And so that's again another negative feedback into worsening climate change. Definitely. I wonder if we're going to see underground more underground homes 'cause I remember reading and under the ground, it's like a consistent temperature. Once you get past a certain depth, it's pretty consistent, like 58°. That's my number that I've read as well, Evan. And so 58° so it's much, it takes much less energy to go from 58 to a comfort level than to go from, you know, 20, 30, Fahrenheit or 90, a hundred Fahrenheit down or up to your comfort zone. So I wonder if we're going to see a lot of that because that seems like a good idea. A way to capitalize on the continuous temperature underground is to use geothermal, I was going to put geothermal in my house, but I ran into a snag because it takes 8 months for them to actually go through everything that needs to be done. There's lots of permitting and they have to drill a well and do a lot of heavy lifting to do it. It's much more expensive to do, but in the long run, I wish I did it. I really do, I wish I could have, but I couldn't go another summer with my children in an unconditioned house. So I had to go, I went with a gas furnace. But anyway, you know, if you're looking to get to get new equipment for your house, consider geothermal, I really am impressed. Well, yeah. Now here's another problem. Current energy grids are not built to handle significant increases in electrical capacity. Straight up. That's it. That's the way it is. Most countries are not ready. They are not there to handle the increase in electrical use and electricity production. So it's too late to completely avoid rising temperatures, but it's very important and relevant to say we do, however, have control over how bad it gets and how well we deal with the heat when it does come. And we can mitigate a lot of future damage that we haven't done yet that if we do nothing is going to take place, right? So, you know, we need to vote for people who care about this and we need to, and everybody needs to become an activist when it comes to global warming. Obviously, this is a story that we will continue to follow. But we've been doing it for 17 years and pretty much exactly what the scientists were saying was going to happen in 17 years ago is happening now, you know what I mean? If anything worse, if anything, it's going to be a little bit worse. All right, Kara, tell us about getting rid of paywalls for scientific studies. The White House office of science and technology policy also called the OSTP release new guidance. Several days ago on August 25th to make federally funded research freely available. The funny thing is the press releases without delay, but I think what they mean is that in the future, when federally funded research is published, it will need to be freely available without delay. There will be a delay in this policy being enacted, but hopefully it's a short one. So basically, during the Obama era, there was a rule. It was announced in 2013 to try to basically make it so that money that our tax dollars, or I'm sorry, research that our tax dollars pay for is, you know, available to us, to read. Nice. Yeah, to learn about. Seems pretty simple and straight, forward, but there were too many loopholes in that 2013 policy and what ended up happening kind of across the board was a one year embargo. And so what we'll often find now and sometimes it's worse than this, but we'll often find is that if an organization, whether it's a public university or a research facility, receives federal funding, meaning funding that comes is diverted our tax funds are diverted towards this research and utilized in part earn whole to help fund that research that it was required. Okay, this needs to be readily available, but the journals basically which are for profit required that there be a one year embargo, meaning after one year it would be open and freely available. But before then, you would have to subscribe to the journal to be able to access it. And anybody who's kind of worked in academia, or maybe you haven't, but you've wanted to access a journal article or an entire journal before in order to, I don't know, read about something, look something up. You pretty quickly realize that if you aren't affiliated with an organization that has a subscription, you're going to be paying dozens, hundreds. Let's say dozens to hundreds of dollars out of pocket for a single article and upwards of thousands of dollars out of pocket if you want to subscribe to some journals. And you think about these institutional subscriptions and they are big, big, big money makers for these journals. Now, the publishers argue that this is necessary to keep the industry alive, that it's an economic imperative that it also keeps the editors doing what they need to do, which is peer review, but of course the editors and the peer reviewers argue and many of the scientists themselves who are publishing in these journals argue that this is volunteer job. It's fundamentally important for science to move forward. And we kind of need to see the whole system overhauled, right? Like the entire publishing system within academia needs to be overhauled. In order to allow for free and unfettered access to this information. But as a start, basically the OSTP is saying a few things. They're saying number one, if your research is funded federally, it will need to not be behind a paywall. Plain and simple. There can not be a paywall. And that happens that must happen immediately upon publication, not after 12 month embargo. There are also saying that it needs to be formatted in a relatively consistent way, especially one that allows it to be readable by screen reading software so that it can be easily searched cataloged also all of the metadata needs to be there. Especially we're talking funding sources where the authors affiliations. So that when we read these articles, we know immediately how they were paid for and who was involved in doing them. They also require that the data be freely available, because very often you'll read a journal article, and it will be a summary of the data. But if there are actual datasets that accompany it, which there should be, those as supplements also need to be freely available, unless there is a legitimate reason for them not to be like it would be unethical to publish them or it would be like a security breach to publish them. And the interesting thing is too, the guidance isn't just talking about peer review journals is talking about all scholarly publications, so they also are including now conference proceedings and book chapters. So anything that's considered a scholarly publication if it was funded by basically your tax dollars, you should be able to read it. And you should be able to see where your tax dollars are going. There's a couple of kind of timelines here. Basically, they are asking that all of this be instituted at the very latest by December 31st, 2025, but that by the middle of next year, 2023, every organization. So we're talking like academic organizations universities, research labs, agencies that spend more than $100 million on research, have to have a plan within the next 6 months for how it's going to increase public access and I think you get a little bit longer if you are a smaller agency. Obviously, because you're funding isn't there to be able to do that. The thing here, yes, it sounds simple. We are paying for the science we should have access to the science. But

OSTP Evan Kara Obama
"ostp" Discussed on Slate's If Then

Slate's If Then

04:45 min | 11 months ago

"ostp" Discussed on Slate's If Then

"Contends that that's on purpose. The thing is that it's supposed to be complicated, that these sort of relationships and dynamics are supposed to be difficult to unravel. I mean, that's how it's intentionally dense. What do you mean by that? It is not meant to be easily traced back to Eric Schmidt as my point is that some of these financial connections and connections to other people are meant to sort of be like one person removed. For example, this federation of American scientists fellowship. Now, when these fellows are then sent to OSTP, they say that they're coming in as if hello for the federal American scientists. But I received internal emails that showed that when they were trying to bring on a specific person, his name is Mark Hayden, who's now the chief of staff. Internally, the deputy chief of staff of workforce put in writing, oh, the energy department is now secured Schmidt futures funding for this fellow. So even though it was through FAS, there was sort of an understanding that, yes, they're coming through FAS, but this is a Schmidt futures funded person. I think people might listen to this and say, well, shared backgrounds and connections and advice are one thing, but at the money, somehow feels different. When you talk to people within the science office, what was it that stuck out to them? Was it the funding or was it the kind of relationships that went way back? The funding is what raised the first red flags. And the words of Rachel Wallace, it raised significant quote unquote significant ethical concerns. In particular, when they wrote in that email that they had secured Schmidt futures funding for this person, in that email, they also noted that they had looped in Tom kale, who was still working at Schmidt futures about them bringing it all on. So Rachel Wallace was said her urgent and immediate advice is like, you need to get Tom Khalil away from anything dealing with Smit features, Schmidt futures, funding of staff, and also Schmidt futures and Eric Schmidt himself have significant conflicts of interest with what OSTP work is. What was happening in the office of OSTP while these ethical concerns were being raised. The ethics officials in the office sort of felt like they were playing whack mole, where it's like a Schmidt futures thing comes up here. They have to smash down. Another spit features things comes over here. They have to smash it down. And they had to repeatedly tell people, hey, Schmidt futures and Eric Schmidt have significant financial overlap in financial interests in the work that OSTP does. You have to withdraw from this fellowship. Like Tom kil can not be involved in helping bringing on Schmidt futures back personnel. There was this repeated sort of back and forth intention between the ethics officials and some of the higher upset OSTP. Now, to their credit, you know, sometimes they listen. For example, the then chief of staff of The Office pushed Tom clout. I think both sides probably feel like they're the good guys. If you're sort of these higher ups, you're like, we have to do so many things this office, and we need to get it done, and we need these people, you know, this philanthropy is willing to help bring on extra hands while we're doing really important work. The ethics officials are like, yes, but they have their own interests. And there is a clear conflict of interest here. Now, I talked to norm eisen, who was the quote unquote ethics art during the Obama administration. And his opinion was that like, hey, some of these are, you know, very meritorious concerns that was his word. But he said, you can understand how a philanthropy would be like, we just want to help. And then people within the government are saying, yes, but government policy should be determined by the government. So in some ways, both sides felt that they were doing the right thing. But you can see how that would lead to conflict between people trying to keep science office above reproach. And then the people at the top, just trying to deal with the fire hose of all the work. This is sort of where the tension came in. After the break, why the science.

Schmidt OSTP Rachel Wallace Eric Schmidt federation of American scienti Mark Hayden Tom kale Tom Khalil energy department Tom kil Smit Tom clout norm eisen Obama administration government
"ostp" Discussed on Slate's If Then

Slate's If Then

08:21 min | 11 months ago

"ostp" Discussed on Slate's If Then

"Technology solves a lot of problems, but it also leads to one of the biggest problems we have today. E waste. We've all probably contributed to E waste, throwing away old laptops, upgrading tablets and phones, but did you know that contributes to over 50 million tons of E waste per year? That's the topic of a recent episode of a great new podcast, the trace route podcast. The traceroute podcast is a 7 part series about the inner workings of our digital world. Each episode includes interviews and stories from some of the leading technologists, entrepreneurs, and innovators of the last 40 years. The most recent episode of trace route explores sustainability in technology. On the one hand, technology is already providing solutions to sustainability issues and the global climate crisis. But on the other hand, data centers consume 1% of the world's entire energy output per year. How do we reconcile this? How do we tackle this problem? It's a fascinating discussion on the trace route podcast. Listen and subscribe to the trace route podcast wherever you get your podcasts. Or go to origins dot dev and learn more. That's the trace route podcast. I want to go back a little bit and sort of set the table on Eric Schmidt's interest in democratic politics and policy. How far back does his involvement in White House policy go? His interest in White House politics and forming relationships with White House goes all the way back to the Clinton administration. In which the Clinton administration creates their first White House website, White House dot gov. And Eric Schmidt as a high executive at then sun microsystems comes in and helps them with that. Now that's just a little bit of a taste. Starting with the Obama administration, really the 2008 campaign, Eric Schmidt, is basically all over it. To the point that in October of 2008, while he's the CEO of Google, he goes on the campaign trail for Barack Obama, and then over the course of the Obama administration, there was an analysis done that basically found that a member of Google had basically met with White House personnel on average once a week for the first 7 years. The Obama administration. During the 2012 campaign, Eric Schmidt was very involved with Obama's reelection effort to the point that on election night, he was in the campaign boiler room. He also helped out of that experience helped found a data company called civic analytics that helps democratic campaigns, including Joe Biden's 2020 primary campaign. What does he want? Is it just to be close to power? Is it to get a policy outcome that is favorable for his companies or is it something more nebulous? You know, it really depends who you ask. Now, there are two main I think most compelling arguments. There are some people that obviously believe he's doing this because he's corrupt that, you know, even though he's worth about $23 billion, you know, him having a role or sort of influence or a stake at a voice in science policy is a way for him to further enrich himself. I mean, he is on the board of a lot of artificial intelligence companies. He still has a lot of Google stock. He has a 20% stake in this huge hedge fund with over $60 billion in assets. So there's one side that's like, he wants to be close to power and he wants to further rich himself. The people that are probably more sympathetic say that Eric Schmidt has a very strong belief that the future of American supremacy is based largely around the future of artificial intelligence policy. Essentially, Eric Schmidt has the conviction that whichever country is the most dominant in artificial intelligence policy is going to win the 21st century. And so he wants to have a very strong role in the future of American science policy because he believes it's necessary for the country. Are there concrete ways? That he has affected government science and tech policy that we can point to. During the Trump administration, he ended up serving as chair of the of this Congress created commission called the national security commission on artificial intelligence. And basically, them in a big staff, their job was to help set priorities for artificial intelligence in national security. It's supposed to essentially be something of a north star for The Pentagon and for the defense establishment. And he was the chair of it, and they produced this huge 700 something page report that was released last year and is now in some ways sort of the map forward for how the defense establishment, especially, but a lot of the country is thinking about the future of artificial intelligence policy. Where Schmidt comes together with the office of science and technology policies is kind of complicated. So what does OSTP do? And it's like most simple iteration. It is the science office within The White House. Now, you have departments, you have health department, you have other places that deal with health. But OSTP is located within the executive office of the president. So in some ways, it is the science office with the most proximity to the president. Now, the priorities of the office, which was created in 1976, differs with every president. Now, in this current office, the Biden administration office, they have been tasked with planning for future pandemics, artificial intelligence, policy writ large, especially how to think about civil rights and algorithmic discrimination. And they are now also in charge of Biden's cancer moonshot, which is one of his most personal priorities, and with dealing with climate change writ large. So these are big issues. Yes, and they don't necessarily have the staff that places like the Environmental Protection Agency do. Or like The Pentagon does the artificial intelligence, but they are sort of the ones that set a lot of the parameters of how The White House is setting the direction with science policy. President Biden pledged that he was going to make science a focus of his administration. And he elevated the office of science and technology policy, otherwise known as OSTP. To a cabinet level office. Within that office, Alex says, lots of staffers had links to Eric Schmidt or his foundation, Schmidt futures. We already know that over a dozen associates of his, including current and former employees landed at the science office, which is only about a 150 people. He has close relationships with obviously Eric lander. Several of the people that worked on the national security commission on artificial intelligence that he chaired also landed at OSTP. Former Google employees landed OSTP and also over the summer for about four months, the chief innovations officer at Schmidt futures, man named Tom kalil, who had worked at OSTP in the past, was brought on to OSTP as an unpaid consultant while he was still being paid and working full time at Schmidt futures. Schmidt futures is also very involved in many of the events in many of the initiatives that OSTP is doing. So on a personal level, he has very strong opinions the future of science policy. And the number of Schmidt features connections and people that recently worked for Schmidt futures is pretty significant considering that the office is relatively small. Listening to Alex detail all of this can be a little confusing. Maybe the links between Eric Schmidt and OSTP feel slightly opaque. Alex.

Eric Schmidt Obama administration White House Clinton administration OSTP Google national security commission o Barack Obama Trump administration sun microsystems office of science and technolo Joe Biden Schmidt Biden administration
"ostp" Discussed on The Secret History of the Future

The Secret History of the Future

08:21 min | 11 months ago

"ostp" Discussed on The Secret History of the Future

"Technology solves a lot of problems, but it also leads to one of the biggest problems we have today. E waste. We've all probably contributed to E waste, throwing away old laptops, upgrading tablets and phones, but did you know that contributes to over 50 million tons of E waste per year? That's the topic of a recent episode of a great new podcast, the trace route podcast. The traceroute podcast is a 7 part series about the inner workings of our digital world. Each episode includes interviews and stories from some of the leading technologists, entrepreneurs, and innovators of the last 40 years. The most recent episode of trace route explores sustainability in technology. On the one hand, technology is already providing solutions to sustainability issues and the global climate crisis. But on the other hand, data centers consume 1% of the world's entire energy output per year. How do we reconcile this? How do we tackle this problem? It's a fascinating discussion on the trace route podcast. Listen and subscribe to the trace route podcast wherever you get your podcasts. Or go to origins dot dev and learn more. That's the trace route podcast. I want to go back a little bit and sort of set the table on Eric Schmidt's interest in democratic politics and policy. How far back does his involvement in White House policy go? His interest in White House politics and forming relationships with White House goes all the way back to the Clinton administration. In which the Clinton administration creates their first White House website, White House dot gov. And Eric Schmidt as a high executive at then sun microsystems comes in and helps them with that. Now that's just a little bit of a taste. Starting with the Obama administration, really the 2008 campaign, Eric Schmidt, is basically all over it. To the point that in October of 2008, while he's the CEO of Google, he goes on the campaign trail for Barack Obama, and then over the course of the Obama administration, there was an analysis done that basically found that a member of Google had basically met with White House personnel on average once a week for the first 7 years. The Obama administration. During the 2012 campaign, Eric Schmidt was very involved with Obama's reelection effort to the point that on election night, he was in the campaign boiler room. He also helped out of that experience helped found a data company called civic analytics that helps democratic campaigns, including Joe Biden's 2020 primary campaign. What does he want? Is it just to be close to power? Is it to get a policy outcome that is favorable for his companies or is it something more nebulous? You know, it really depends who you ask. Now, there are two main I think most compelling arguments. There are some people that obviously believe he's doing this because he's corrupt that, you know, even though he's worth about $23 billion, you know, him having a role or sort of influence or a stake at a voice in science policy is a way for him to further enrich himself. I mean, he is on the board of a lot of artificial intelligence companies. He still has a lot of Google stock. He has a 20% stake in this huge hedge fund with over $60 billion in assets. So there's one side that's like, he wants to be close to power and he wants to further rich himself. The people that are probably more sympathetic say that Eric Schmidt has a very strong belief that the future of American supremacy is based largely around the future of artificial intelligence policy. Essentially, Eric Schmidt has the conviction that whichever country is the most dominant in artificial intelligence policy is going to win the 21st century. And so he wants to have a very strong role in the future of American science policy because he believes it's necessary for the country. Are there concrete ways? That he has affected government science and tech policy that we can point to. During the Trump administration, he ended up serving as chair of the of this Congress created commission called the national security commission on artificial intelligence. And basically, them in a big staff, their job was to help set priorities for artificial intelligence in national security. It's supposed to essentially be something of a north star for The Pentagon and for the defense establishment. And he was the chair of it, and they produced this huge 700 something page report that was released last year and is now in some ways sort of the map forward for how the defense establishment, especially, but a lot of the country is thinking about the future of artificial intelligence policy. Where Schmidt comes together with the office of science and technology policies is kind of complicated. So what does OSTP do? And it's like most simple iteration. It is the science office within The White House. Now, you have departments, you have health department, you have other places that deal with health. But OSTP is located within the executive office of the president. So in some ways, it is the science office with the most proximity to the president. Now, the priorities of the office, which was created in 1976, differs with every president. Now, in this current office, the Biden administration office, they have been tasked with planning for future pandemics, artificial intelligence, policy writ large, especially how to think about civil rights and algorithmic discrimination. And they are now also in charge of Biden's cancer moonshot, which is one of his most personal priorities, and with dealing with climate change writ large. So these are big issues. Yes, and they don't necessarily have the staff that places like the Environmental Protection Agency do. Or like The Pentagon does the artificial intelligence, but they are sort of the ones that set a lot of the parameters of how The White House is setting the direction with science policy. President Biden pledged that he was going to make science a focus of his administration. And he elevated the office of science and technology policy, otherwise known as OSTP. To a cabinet level office. Within that office, Alex says, lots of staffers had links to Eric Schmidt or his foundation, Schmidt futures. We already know that over a dozen associates of his, including current and former employees landed at the science office, which is only about a 150 people. He has close relationships with obviously Eric lander. Several of the people that worked on the national security commission on artificial intelligence that he chaired also landed at OSTP. Former Google employees landed OSTP and also over the summer for about four months, the chief innovations officer at Schmidt futures, man named Tom kalil, who had worked at OSTP in the past, was brought on to OSTP as an unpaid consultant while he was still being paid and working full time at Schmidt futures. Schmidt futures is also very involved in many of the events in many of the initiatives that OSTP is doing. So on a personal level, he has very strong opinions the future of science policy. And the number of Schmidt features connections and people that recently worked for Schmidt futures is pretty significant considering that the office is relatively small. Listening to Alex detail all of this can be a little confusing. Maybe the links between Eric Schmidt and OSTP feel slightly opaque. Alex.

Eric Schmidt Obama administration White House Clinton administration OSTP Google national security commission o Barack Obama Trump administration sun microsystems office of science and technolo Joe Biden Schmidt Biden administration
"ostp" Discussed on This Week in Tech

This Week in Tech

09:58 min | 1 year ago

"ostp" Discussed on This Week in Tech

"You know, you need this. You've got to have it. The nudge act, I like to call it the new Jack. This is a new bill introduced by senator Klobuchar. That might actually be another one of those headwinds blowing against Facebook. The social media nudge act, which is sponsored by senator Klobuchar and Cynthia Loomis of Wyoming. Is kind of interesting. I might say kooky. It would direct the national science foundation and the national Academy of Sciences engineering and medicine. To study, quote, content neutral ways to slow down the spread of misinformation. The FTC would get the recommendations, codify them, mandate that Facebook and Twitter and other social media platforms put them into practice. Is it even conceivable that the NSF and the national Academy of Sciences engineering and medicine they Sam could come up with best practices to add friction to content sharing online that would make any sense at all? This makes me very mad. Let me tell you why. Yes. Good. Because in 2014, so this is 8 years ago. Now, 2013, sorry. I know where you're going. I know exactly where you're going with this. In 2013, I had more than one meeting at State Department with some folks, some higher level folks and lower level folks. And I said, hey, there's this Twitter thing, and there's misinformation bots. And here's what it bought is. And here's what a botnet is. And here's how some of this stuff works. And this is probably going to be sometime soon. Channel for misinformation. And that's something you ought to be paying attention to. And nobody cared. I think I'm a pretty effective communicator. And I failed repeatedly to get anybody at all excited about the coming onslaught of misinformation. And also ways for us to use to think through how on Twitter and Facebook botnets might pop up and how they would work. So I don't know. I think it's like 2022 and I feel like everybody's super freaking late to the party on this one. And it makes me really upset. I thought you were going to talk about the other thing that makes you really a set, which is the abandonment of the U.S. office of technology assessment. Well, there's that. Listen, we don't have a list. It's a long list of things. The piss Amy off. There is, I think senator Klobuchar is great. I think she's her heart is in the right place. But I also think what the hell has everybody been doing. Yeah, so I know I was not the only one shopping the surround the hill. We don't have an OSTP office of or we don't have a, oh my God, so many acronyms. We don't have the office of tech assessment. The OSTP finally has a new person in charge, but we just kick the can down the road too many times. So I don't know. Does the office producer hope? And technology policy kind of take the place of the old office of the now. OST was supposed to advise Congress. It was supposed to be like the GAO, a nonpartisan technology group of technology experts that would help Congress understand these difficult issues. Right. So I'm actually a fellow at the GAO on foresight, but the GAO's mandate is about auditing. It's not about it's not really about foresight. But it's not partisan, right? It's supposed to be a trusting and trusted authority that is. To grind in other words. Correct. Yes, no, but everybody else has an extra credit with them because their auditors. Nobody wants. So they are doing work and they're trying to become a central hub for foresight, but like nobody wants GAO coming knocking on the door and saying, hey, let's talk about your long-term plans. Nobody wants to deal with auditing. The officer technology assessment was the group that was responsible for doing research without politics involved on thorny areas over long periods of time and when they were around, they produced a lot of terrific research. We are in this situation in we are highly polarized, did you see this the times late last night published maybe Paris saw this. They think they know one of the originators of QAnon? Oh. They know the two originators of QAnon, which I believe has. Is it the father of one of them is no? One of them is one of them is running for one of them is Ron watt. Ron Watkins. We always thought it was him. Yeah. Yeah. Who has been in charge of kind of the platform behind it, but the other one is, I'm forgetting his name, but he was an original commoner and poster on the original forum. Watkins, according according to the documentary kind of took over the QAnon. Account when it moved off 4chan to 8chan. Watkins platform. I guess this other guy is the forerunner who and this is based on linguistic analysis. Interesting. But again, my point is, one of them is running for Congress. How do we it's inexcusable that we have gotten ourselves to this place? I think. I don't care what your political beliefs are, just the fact that politics is that the problem that I have is just that politics is so good. Ron Watkins is running for Congress. Oh my God. In Arizona. No, but this is the point. We are in a situation that was avoidable. I keep hoping you have a reason for not running for Congress in South Africa. I came that would put a makes it hard. It's a long distance relationship because no never work. I keep thinking that we're all going to come to our senses. The first mistake, Leah. A senses are long gone. And the people will just go, what? Oh, no, that was nuts. Pizzagate? What? No, no, no, no. We're not going to elect Ron Watkins. But Klobuchar, I think part of this legislation is in response. I don't think it's just about the platforms. It's about it's this sort of bigger picture thing. And again, how did we get to this point? I think we got to this point because we just didn't there wasn't a plan and we didn't have a process in place and I'm not saying we need to plan everything. But it would be good at least to run and develop some scenarios and then backwards from those. I think it's a big mistake to blame the platforms, honestly. I've come to round to this, they're just a place where people express themselves. The problem lies. In the people, not the platforms. I mean, this is the gun maker defense, correct. You have platforms that are incentivized to I guess you're right. Have people on them as much as possible, Facebook for a long time was built specifically to have its algorithm kind of feed you things that got more emoji reactions beyond just the like. And it ended up being that some of the emoji reactions that were weighted even higher ended up being things like the angry reaction. So of course, that ends up meaning in practice that people in their feeds are increasingly seeing content that makes them extremely emotional and negative way. And then generates comments calling that out and frankly, so do the news that as engagement. So the 24 hour news networks do exactly the same thing. Your local news at 11 does exactly. They know what drives engagement. They always do. It's a problem bigger than social networks. But I mean, the thing that I guess to circle back to original point of the thing that makes me angry about this nudge act or possible plan is that I don't think it's likely that a government agency reviewing these social networks to come up with a list of best practices for how to slow the sharing of content is ever going to result in any actionable change for these platforms. I mean, one, it seems unlikely that this bill would pass whatsoever given the amount of money in tech lobbying and the amount that companies like Facebook have to gain from something like this not being codified. But two, we just, we have been stunned over the last couple of years watching all of these congressional hearings relating to tech at just how little the people in power happened to seem to understand about how technology actually works, you know? I mean, this is how we get quotes like Mark Zuckerberg will you commit to ending finsta, which is what happened in a recent congressional hearing. I mean, it doesn't seem likely that this is going to produce something actionable and helpful. It almost feels like witchcraft like they're saying, well, we need to conduct a study. And they're going to come up with a magic silver bullet and then we're going to force these platforms to adhere to it. It's almost a way of saying we don't know what to do..

senator Klobuchar national Academy of Sciences e Ron Watkins GAO Cynthia Loomis NSF Facebook Congress Twitter U.S. office of technology asse office of tech assessment OSTP Ron watt Watkins FTC chan Wyoming State Department Jack Sam