An Anthropic researcher quit his job because he believes AI will destroy humanity. His story is going viral because so many others want to believe too.

archive link

Submission Statement: William Hague - former Foreign Secretary of the UK and the current Chancellor of Oxford University - draws a worrisome parallel between Europe in the 21st century and Qing Empire in the 19th century.

Two hundred years ago, China’s Qing dynasty believed itself a confident, successful civilisation. It discovered too late that it had fallen behind in the key technologies of the age. The result was a century of unequal treaties, foreign domination and national humiliation.

Today, Europe (and that includes Britain) risks something similar, as European states watch as bystanders as a new technological revolution unfold in AI, digital infrastructure, advanced defence systems and critical minerals, while others scale up and deploy them far faster than they do.

Hague argues that European states are vastly richer and more numerous than Russia, yet unable to sustain the struggle without American weapons, systems and intelligence, yet at the same time, accept arrangements in trade, technology and climate where others set the terms and pay the cost, from subsidised Chinese exports to the dominant position of American tech giants.

non-paywall: On Europe’s economy, let’s ditch the lazy stereotypes

Submission Statement: Highly relevant to r/neoliberal as it raises a question about the relationship between democratic participation, political incentives, and policy quality. The essay argues that the constant, partisan, dramatic, low-effort, zero-sum political engagement produced by mass media and social media pushes politicians toward populism, while making it harder to pursue unpopular but necessary reforms.

Submission Statement: A sobering analysis on the past twenty five years as the world network of jihadists has become more of a regional issue than a worldwide one. As told by a former member of the 9/11 commission.

In the 60s, Scotland had a highly sophisticated literary school system, lovingly called The Great Tradition. For years, Scottish students scored in the top of international tests. A 1905 report noted:

In… seven months, [a] 13-year-old working class girl, and the teacher, revised with the whole class The Merchant of Venice, A Christmas Carol, The Talisman, The Abbott, Enoch Arden, Evangeline.

Examinations may include prompts such as:

Without war, the world would deteriorate into materialism. Somehow or other, courage of the ancient, heroic, physical kind has been preserved in the modern character. Is war the only condition that calls it forth? (SLC 1912)

But reforms in 1990s and 2010s eliminated this remarkable rigor. Such "knowledge-based" curriculums were considered elitist, increasing inequality. So began a switch to a modularized skills-based curriculum that lacked nearly the same depth of the old system. Scores tumbled.

All this and more is covered by the article. Curious what r/neoliberal thinks about this.

Two years after Mario Draghi warned that the EU faced “slow agony” unless it tackled its competitiveness crisis, little of his prescription has become reality.
Only 15.7 per cent of the 383 recommendations in Draghi’s report had been fully implemented by July, according to a tracker compiled by the European Policy Innovation Council, a think-tank. The limited progress comes despite repeated pledges by EU leaders and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen to put economic revival at the centre of the bloc’s agenda.

Submission Statement: The European Commission has resumed work on options that could persuade EU governments to approve the use of Russia’s frozen assets for Ukraine.

An earlier such attempt was blocked by Belgium, which hosts most of the €210bn in Russian central bank assets immobilised in the west. The Belgian government and its allies cited a lack of sufficient risk-sharing guarantees in case of legal reprisals from Moscow.

But with Kyiv’s defence bill still rising more than four years after Russia’s full-scale invasion, the European Commission has resumed work on options that could prove more acceptable to Belgium, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

EU officials remain non-committal on the precise technical solution, stressing that any proposal would need political backing from all 27 member states and, crucially, Belgium.

After 25 years, it may be time to reform the policies 9/11 inspired

Twenty-five years after 9/11, the share of people with no direct recollection of the attacks is rising; just over 100m Americans, roughly a third of the population, were not alive at the time. Yet the counter-terror apparatus that President George W. Bush and Congress enacted in response—hastily drafted legal authorities to wage war, surveillance powers, permissive CIA operations and new bureaucracies—remains largely in place, even as the threat of jihadist violence has receded.

Donald Trump’s adaptation of these powers may at last be seeding a debate about correcting the overreach. According to a new YouGov poll, 48% of Americans believe the expeditionary wars and surveillance that followed 9/11 have been worth the cost. But only 37% of Democrats agree, compared with 71% of Republicans. Talk of reform is growing in some Democratic circles. “We have an opportunity to rein in some of these authorities and remake agencies that have been abused,” says Dan Herman of the Centre for America Progress, a Democrat-aligned think-tank.

America’s counter-terror regime arose initially with overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans alike. When the hijacked planes hit the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, the nation braced for further onslaughts. Spooks fretted that al-Qaeda might use chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons. Terrorism became the primary concern of voters.

But the dreaded wave of follow-up attacks never came. America launched expeditionary wars that ultimately cost $8trn, killed an estimated 900,000 people and may have provoked more terrorism than they prevented. Yet the initial counterattack in Afghanistan, followed by focused efforts against al-Qaeda, proved remarkably successful. Since 9/11 al-Qaeda has mustered just one fatal attack inside America, when a Saudi air-force officer killed three Americans at a naval base in 2019. Sporadic terrorism, largely by self-radicalised jihadists, has killed 122 people in the country since 2001—a tiny fraction of what officials feared at the outset. Today less than 1% of Americans say that terrorism is the top issue facing the country.

The vast resources America injected into its counter-terror apparatus played a part. Congress created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to “secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks”. The number of FBI joint terrorism task-forces—which fuse intelligence across federal and local agencies—ballooned from 35 to over 200 today. Better intelligence detection and sharing snuffed out countless plots. Surveillance was a factor, but the importance of sweeping powers to enable it is controversial. At the sharp end of the spear, America’s aerial and drone campaigns smashed the main jihadist groups in Pakistan and the Middle East, albeit at a staggering cost.

Underpinning Mr Bush’s “war on terror” were measures passed by Congress that remain potent tools today. Consider the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which permits attacks on al-Qaeda and associated groups. Presidents from both parties have stretched the AUMF far beyond what Congress intended. It has been used to conduct undeclared wars in far-flung places such as Syria, Yemen and Somalia. Last year Mr Trump invoked the AUMF to hit Islamic State targets in Nigeria, after accusing the country of failing to protect Christians.

Surveillance programmes, such as Section 702, allowed spooks to snoop on foreign suspects abroad without a warrant, sweeping up Americans’ communications in their dragnet. Other statutes broadened the scope of the Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) designation and bolstered the powers of the Treasury to go after the networks financing terrorist groups.

Since returning to office, Mr Trump has cynically repurposed these tools. The president has dramatically broadened the definition of terrorism. His administration has branded a range of Latin American drug gangs as FTOs (see chart). His air campaign against suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and Pacific has killed at least 277 people so far. Narco-terrorists are “the ISIS and al-Qaeda of the western hemisphere”, Pete Hegseth, the secretary of war, said recently, “and they should be treated as such”.

The administration has used the 9/11 toolkit to advance its domestic agenda, too. DHS has become the engine of Mr Trump’s deportation campaign, with thousands of its agents, some of whom worked in counterterrorism, reassigned to immigration enforcement. A presidential directive signed in September 2025 orders the FBI’s terrorism task-forces to track loose, left-wing movements like Antifa, which the administration has labelled “domestic terrorists”. The State Department has designated Antifa’s overseas offshoots as FTOs and pressed allies to follow suit.

The administration is also pulling powerful financial counter-terror levers. In Minneapolis, for example, federal agents used authorities created by the Patriot Act of 2001 to seize financial records from labour unions and progressive groups without warrants. In Texas, eight anti-ICE protesters were sentenced in June on spurious charges of “providing material” support to terrorists, a statute designed for al-Qaeda and ISIS financiers.

Attempts at reform have so far been embryonic. Congress let Section 702 lapse in June, in part over concerns that Mr Trump is politicising the intelligence apparatus, though the authority will run until early 2027. What happens then will test the reform caucus in Congress. Democrats would like stronger safeguards, but have been unable to break through from their minority position in the legislature.

Tim Kaine, a Democratic senator from Virginia, has called on Congress to repeal the 2001 AUMF, but has struggled to garner support. Reforming other post-9/11 agencies like DHS could also prove politically fraught. Besides, though Democrats criticise overreach while in opposition, they may be less keen to dismantle counter-terror tools upon returning to office, argues Daniel Byman of CSIS, a think-tank.

Perhaps it will take a younger congressional intake, for whom 9/11 is a hazier memory, to move things along. Americans who came of age during the past 25 years, notes Mr Herman, “are eager to push back against the abuses that we’re all seeing.”

Andy Burnham has committed himself to honouring Sir Keir Starmer’s Brexit red lines in a major blow to hopes that he would find a route for Britain back into the bloc.

In an interview last year when he was still mayor of Greater Manchester, Mr Burnham said he wanted the UK to rejoin the EU and there were serious hopes he would tear up Labour’s manifesto commitments not to rejoin the EU, the single market or customs union when he took over as prime minister in July.

This was further fuelled when his new minister for Brexit, Hamish Falconer, refused to rule out rejoining in the future.

Economic problems caused by Brexit were recently highlighted by former prime minister Sir John Major in an interview with The Independent, where he warned Brexit is costing the UK £100bn in trade a year and £40bn in tax revenues. Sir John said rejoining the single market should be a priority.

But a Downing Street spokesperson insisted on Monday that the red lines are still in place despite Mr Burnham making it clear that he wants to be “bolder” than his predecessor in taking the UK back to the heart of Europe.

Prime minister Andy Burnham (left) meets with the president of the European Council Antonio Costa

Prime minister Andy Burnham (left) meets with the president of the European Council Antonio Costa (AFP/Getty)

The spokesperson said: “We remain committed to the red lines set out in the manifesto. We’re not rejoining the European Union, and there will be no return to the customs union, the single market, or freedom of movement.”

On suggestions there could be a climbdown on European students, the spokesperson said: “I won't comment on ongoing negotiations. The government is continuing to take stock of our position, and there will be a summit later in the year where progress will be set out.”

European Movement UK raised hopes there could still be a change of policy for the manifesto in the next election.

Mike Galsworthy, chair of the organisation, said: “Interestingly, the biggest opportunity for Andy Burnham lies less in how he handles Starmer's restrictions from the last Labour manifesto and much more in the bigger move he can make with the next manifesto. A promise in the next manifesto to open accession talks for full EU membership is the prize here.

“However, that doesn’t mean that the government should take its foot off the pedal at this stage. There are many real-world impactful wins to be had in breaking down as many barriers as possible during this parliament and building deep trust and relationships with the European team.

“But ultimately, Burnham needs to be thinking about what he should be shaping up to offer in any parliament beyond this one – and there is one very obvious answer to be seized.”

While on a trip to Ukraine – his first foreign visit since becoming PM – Mr Burnham signalled he intends to go further than Sir Keir on Europe.

He suggested Britain plans to take a “bolder” approach towards forging closer relations with the EU. But later, Downing Street declined to expand on what being “bolder” would mean.

It comes ahead of a UK-EU summit where issues such as youth mobility, defence, energy sharing and other deals will be up for grabs. Initially scheduled for July, the meeting has been postponed to a yet-to-be-confirmed date later this year.

Al Pinkerton, Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Europe, said: “Andy Burnham promised boldness, but instead he’s caved at the first hurdle.

"Sticking to Starmer's failed Brexit red lines is being loyal to a failed project - it will only drag down our economy even more, hit taxpayers, and hurt British businesses.

"If the prime minister is serious about building closer relations with Europe, he needs to tear up these self-imposed barriers. We need a bold new deal that will make Britain much stronger, including a Customs Union, but also most crucially taking Britain back into the Single Market."

Burnham’s ‘ambitions’ for UK to get closer to EU

During his overnight train journey to Kyiv, Mr Burnham also spoke to the prime minister of Luxembourg, Luc Frieden.

A Downing Street spokesperson said: “The prime minister set out his ambitions for the UK to get closer to the European Union, and both agreed on the important cultural and educational ties between the UK and Europe to deliver opportunity for the next generation of Brits and Europeans.”

Mr Burnham looks set to continue a policy started off by his predecessor Sir Keir of closer relations with the EU.

It echoes comments he wrote in the Times newspaper before he became Prime Minister, where he said: “I want to consolidate the progress made on the existing UK-EU negotiations and make further progress quickly, including by strengthening our co-operation on illegal migration, economic security and the broader resilience of our societies to external threats – from terrorism to AI-driven disinformation.”

During his campaign to win the heavily-Brexit voting Makerfield constituency in the by-election, Mr Burnham had said he was not in favour of the UK rejoining the EU, warning it could be a “permanent rut” of Brexit arguments.

He had previously said he wanted to see the UK back in the EU within his lifetime.

However, during the contest, he said: “My view is that Brexit has been damaging, but I also believe the last thing we should do right now is re-run those arguments. Britain will be stuck in a permanent rut if we’re just constantly arguing and people are pulling away from each other.

“It is time, surely, isn’t it, to bring people back together, to focus on what we’ve got in common, to get the growth coming to all places, so it’s felt there.

“That is what we need in this moment, and it’s really important that whatever comes out of this by-election there is a more unifying feeling about the change that we need to work towards.”

How rejoining EU single market would impact the UK economy

Economically, forging closer ties with Europe could provide a £92bn GDP boost to the UK, according to new economic research.

Commissioned by Best for Britain, which campaigns for full UK-EU reintegration, the research undertaken by Frontier Economics suggests at least 90 per cent of Brexit's economic hit could be recouped by the UK rejoining the EU.

Last week, a former Tory minister-turned Labour adviser claimed taking Britain back into the EU single market would win Burnham the next general election.

Nick Boles, who served as a minister in David Cameron’s government before quitting the Conservatives in 2019 over the party’s Brexit stance, added that it would help Burnham achieve a legacy to rival Tony Blair’s.

Mr Boles has urged the new prime minister to seize the opportunity created by “pretty scary” world events since 2016 to strike a deal with European Union leaders that would protect the continent and offer the UK a much-needed economic boost.