It was the week of the 25th anniversary of 9/11, the consequential BRICS summit in New Delhi, Princess Diana’s revenge dress, and much else.
The video of Zohran Mamdani and AOC laughing and greeting each other at the 9/11 ceremony has been making the rounds. Assuredly, it’s one giant ‘nothingburgher’ propagated by the right wing media ecosystem. There were in fact, certain friends from the far right at the event who were gleefully exchanging pleasantries with no visible sign of grief on their faces as the names of the victims of the brutal terrorist attack were read out. It has been 25 years since the atrocity but the country’s response to the attacks — through the launch of the notorious ‘forever wars’ — still causes division. Only 48% Americans think what followed was worth the cost. The Onion newspaper ran an article with the title: ‘Americans Fondly Recall 9/11 As Last Time Nation Could Unite In Bloodlust’. The article went on to say that it was the last time the country could stand united “in a bloody, homicidal thirst for vengeance.” And what did it beget? A retreat from the Graveyard of Empires.
This week, at long last, I finished reading the book ‘Torn’. The author Eugene Rabkins rightly expresses his disappointment at the present-day fashion culture influenced by postmodernism. It’s become a semiotic void, filled with meaningless propositions and borrowings from yesteryear fashion-musings, lacking originality and inventiveness. He has a particular dislike for Virgil Abloh of Off-white fame for setting off this trend. Luxury fashion, lately, he argues, has become about symbols, logos, status-seeking — a vehicle for exhibiting one’s wealth. The destruction of youth cultures has also contributed to the waning of distinctive fashion identities — like the ones observed in late 20th century in relation to punk, rocks etc. ‘Torn’ is an informative account of fashion culture’s history and its metamorphoses through the ages. It diagnoses the industry’s current predicament while proposing a viable solution — one that calls for independent media and decentralisation.
Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, raised the alarm on rapid AI development and its destructive potential through his 3,800-word essay, ‘We Must Pace the Frontier’, earlier this week. He emphasised the need to slow down, establish industrywide safety standards, preferably involving independent third-party auditors and create a mutually agreed global regulatory system. Sam Altman and Elon Musk were quick to chime in. The calls for self-restraint and deceleration point to collective concern about the autonomous powers of AI. The fiasco engendered by Open AI’s experimental models hacking its way through AI research platform Hugging Face added to the woes of AI safety researchers worldwide. Discussions revolving around AI-anxieity reached a fever pitch when Jacob Coxon, a researcher who had previously worked for OpenAI, left Anthropic, citing concerns about ‘self-improving artificial intelligence’. Trump equated the AI doomsday-talk to a ‘hoax’ and called the critics ‘very negative forces.’ The obvious stumbling block on the road is China. We could slow down AI development if we needed to but Chinese developers are improving their AI models at a rapid pace, and could outmanoeuvre the US and potentially use it for weaponry. Mr Amodei acknowledged that China is the “toughest dilemma” in this process. China meanwhile, dismissed the concerns of American AI executives as ‘fear mongering.’ Since its inception, Anthropic has wrestled with the twin goals of building AI safely while generating enough money to push forward the frontier of AI research.
Many politicians, across the spectrum, disagree with Mr. Trump’s views but can’t decide on a solid proposal. Should it be, one, allowing commerce department to ban AI models that pose a ‘catastrophic risk’? Or two, simply ban models from being released? Whatever be the course of path opted for, the strictest ones will ask developers to submit models before the government for checking. All of these would certainly require the approval of Mr. Willy Wonka (you know who!).
In other news, to the dismay of many mathematicians, OpenAI claimed that it found the solution to the Navier-Stokes problem which is one of the seven millennium problems chosen in 2000 by the Clay Mathematics Institute as the hardest and most significant of the lot. Experts pointed out the AI model built on the existing progress made by researchers.
I’ve lately become interested in Arab literature and the histories spanning the region. More appropriately, I think I’ve become invested in my Indo-Arab/Iranian/African ancestry and the bearings it has on my identity. So I picked up a novel by Saleem Haddad, titled ‘Floodlines’ and I’m eager to read it next week. I’m also part of a Morocco-based bookclub that focuses on Arab literature and I must admit, unlike the other bookclub I’m a part of, which meets at my local bookshop, this one feels engaging. Perhaps it is also because I’ve not met the other folks in the club in person, the excitement of making transnational friendships notwithstanding.
Last week’s The Economist ran its main story on Islam in Europe. In European country does the proportion of Muslim population exceed 10%. Contrary to right-wing rhetoric, Muslims that arrive in the continent integrate fairly quickly. This is evinced in their higher schooling and lower fertility rates. While the threats posed by the minority are little, the article points to the issue of ‘entryism’ where small, organised networks influence schools, charities, and the like, thereby shaping opinions in the community. In this context it is important to highlight the difference between Islam, the faithful religion and Islamism. The latter is the belief that the state should enforce Islamic principles. Entryism is one of the mechanisms through which this is achieved. The article further states, “the idea of a public discussion about how best to handle extreme views within the Muslim community was a good one but that dialogue never really got a chance.” Moreover leftist and centrist denials about the problems posed by extremism, mostly due to vote-bank politics, gives further ammunition to charged, right-wing alarmism. The populist statements are made usually by the veterans sitting at Reform UK and Restore Britain.
Yesterday, I came across a graphic which analysed all of Elon Musk’s recent tweets and concluded that there’s no country he’s been more obsessed with than the UK. There are also murmurs of him funding Restore Britain. More shock for Reform UK, which currently seems to be on a trajectory downwards.
Milo Yianopoulos, who the ET describes as “the British Enfant terrible of right-wing provocation, Trump fanboy, ex-editor of Breitbart News, and defender of deportation (especially of Somali refugees)”, in an ironic twist of fate, has been deported from the US back to Britain, by Trump’s favourite crusaders, the ICE. After being meted out this stone-cold, icy (indeed) treatment, he yelped, “I didn’t really understand the physical reality of how institutionalised the brutality is in America.”
There’s something tragicomic about Trump being at loggerheads with the Federal Reserve regarding interest rates. It hasn’t been raised in the last three years. Trump wants to bring them down even further, claiming that goods are “getting cheaper”. The rest of the American population does not think so. Despite the open antagonism, the US Central Bank went ahead and raised interest rates. The furious, orange-bobbed man is storming his keyboard on Truth Social.
Meanwhile, in India, core inflation — stripped of volatile energy and food prices — has risen to 4.2%. It is imperative to curb inflation before it becomes entrenched after which it will be difficult to handle. Nothing depletes purchasing power like pricier products when wage growth is stagnant.
There have been conversations lately, between experts and in magazines about the phenomenon of ‘Great Wealth Transfer’ in the US. It refers to the imminent transfer of roughly $110trn wealth from the ‘silent’ and ‘boomer’ generations — those born between 1920s and 1960s — to their offsprings. While some argue that this intergenerational shift is a threat to meritocracy and capitalism, researchers Eric Zuick and Oven Zidar offer a fresh perspective in the latest guest essay on The Economist. Essentially, they argue that family-firms in which the reins have been handed over to generational heirs do less well, and tends to receive strong completion — and even get wiped out — by their well-run peers. The self-correcting forces of the economy will make sure that inefficiencies are punished. That is to say, there is much cause for hope.
Speaking of capitalism, it helps to recollect this important observation by Marx: capitalism, he said, is prone to repeat economic crises of overproduction. Therefore, it manufactures ‘false needs’ in order to keep expanding its output and make profits.
Sometimes I think it would do Trump some good to read Asterix given his incessant desire to conquer Greenland, Canada (and what else?). If he’s not able to conquer, he quenches his desires by renaming places, like ‘Gulf of America’ for instance. Caesar may command an empire but he still cannot quite conquer one stubborn village. And that’s illuminating.
Lastly, a bit about Diana’s revenge dress which she wore to an evening event in which incidentally Prince Charles would also confess about his affair. The dress which has now been auctioned for millions, was considered too risqué by Diana herself. Sometimes I wonder if she knew about her charm and enormous aura. The entire current royal family pales in comparison to her.
On that note, this week’s wrap-up ends.
Leave a Reply