Best Of

Since it is universally agreed that AI is here, is here to stay, and the issues are how to use and regulate and avert disaster, the subject is bound to come up.

@fintwitter.bsky.social‬

 MAJOR COMPANIES ARE STARTING TO CUT BACK ON AI USE AS COSTS IN SOME CASES ARE NOW HIGHER THAN HUMAN WORKERS.

Ai has for years been sold at below cost to encourage people to use it.

Add the additional issue that as models have increased in size the number of tokens used also increases and it’s getting to the point that a human being is cheaper than AI for the same task.

That isn’t to say that AI is a dead end but it’s going to be a niche product that doesn’t justify the current optimistic valuations

Out-of-control employees are blowing AI budgets alarmingly fast
A rising number of businesses must re-evaluate their strategies as the technology’s costs mount
...
Uber’s chief technology officer, revealed in April that the ride-hailing giant had burned through its entire annual AI budget in less than four months as staff swarmed to programming tool Claude Code.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/17da6d6fb02383c1

Gift link so no paywall.

The Blair Essay is a lot better than the headlines about it would suggest.

For example, the headlines say, "Blair tells Labour to ditch net zero and drill in the North Sea," but what the essay actually says is, "We must prioritise cheaper energy and electrification over net zero and use what is left of our North Sea oil and gas resources."

"Electrification" is the process of replacing fossil fuels with renewable electricity. It's the principle means by which net zero is delivered. The continued technological development of renewables makes them the cheap energy option in an age of geopolitical instability and fossil fuel supply disruption.

I wouldn't see this as abandoning net zero, but choosing a carrot-led approach - of concentrating on better technology to replace fossil fuels - rather than a stick-reliant approach - of restricting fossil fuel use to force adoption of other technologies. This is a long way from Trump's ideological opposition to renewables, for example.

I think Blair's Essay is weakest on Trump. He is in denial of Trump's weakness in relation to, and adulation of, Putin, Xi and other dictators, and the stark consequences this has for democracies. But I think that, as a starting point for a serious discussion about Britain's future it has a lot of merit, and is a more useful contribution than anything that has emerged from Labour's leadership wrangling, the Tories, or the Lib Dems.

Blair has to continue arguing for sticking close to the Americans regardless of how idiotic or egregious they become, as his lifetime quest to try and escape from the prison of his own tragic misjudgement.

Morning all

It's a paradox of politics that while there can be popular Prime Ministers, there are no popular living ex-Prime Ministers. At death, of course, it becomes very different and no doubt on that day hopefully far in the future someone will have something nice to say about Liz Truss.

Tony Blair joins John Major in the camp of former Prime Ministers we love to hate with his "intervention" this morning.

It's curious he's getting plenty of vitriol from all parts of the political spectrum which suggests he's probably talking some degree of sense. I'll have to try and read the whole essay when time allows.

Is this periodic intervention as practiced by Blair and Major different to the weekly sniping of Johnson in the Mail or Truss on one of her podcasts? I'm not sure - are there any true Blairites? Were there any at the time?

My recollection remains a missed opportunity of sorts in the first term and a second term delineated by events elsewhere and leading ultimately to a finaincial crisis from which the politics of economics has never recovered (along with growth)? That era of cheap food, cheap energy, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values was nirvana for "Middle England" which probably explains the two re-election victories.

Indeed, I'd argue the events of 2008 remain the seminal experience with which we are still coming to terms.

On the contrary, I’d say that Major has grown in stature and reputation since his premiership, whereas Blair has grown merely in hubris (and wealth)

Ironically I would also now say Blair is slightly right of Major, certainly based on his latest article and the Labour left despise Blair now in a way they don't Major

With 14% of votes in, the Republican Party in Texas has decided it wants a competitive race in November. It's 59.4% for Paxton against 40.6% for Cornyn.

Paxton's lead is extending.

It looks like we have a real contest in November.

It's an absolute rout: Paxton is on almost 63% with more than 50% counted. Paxton is the nominee.

Game over, man! Game OVER!

Excellent news for the Democrats.
2.1 on Betfair to win the Texas Senate seat. 48% chance.

The Republicans look increasingly unhinged.

Even allowing for their fanatical devotion to Trump, why on earth would they pick a criminal with such an appalling track record of incompetence as their candidate?

It’s not as though Cornyn was exactly a liberal either.

If they lose the Senate over this they have only themselves to blame (assuming Greg Abbott would certify a Dem victory, of course).

The Republicans could be close to having 60 seats in the Senate. But, time and again, over the past 16 years, they have thrown Senate seats away by choosing lunatics and/or crooks.

My God, bring Tony back. He’s head and shoulders above all of this lot.

I'd rewrite as my god bring the pre GFC economy and public finances and stable cold war dividend international environment back - it's head and shoulders above this 2026 malarky.

Blair was a great politician and a good PM (ex Iraq) but he had such an easier task than a UK government has today. It'd be nice if he gave this weighty and undeniable fact a tad more recognition.

Also, he made the mistake that we nearly(?) all made; he assumed that the good times he got to run the country in were normal, rather than predicatably transient.

He wasn't unique in that- I don't remember anyone asking "what happens when the oil runs out and when all these boomer workers retire?", but with hindsight it was a blooming obvious question to ask. We needed an ant but voted for a grasshopper.

Since it is universally agreed that AI is here, is here to stay, and the issues are how to use and regulate and avert disaster, the subject is bound to come up.

@fintwitter.bsky.social‬

 MAJOR COMPANIES ARE STARTING TO CUT BACK ON AI USE AS COSTS IN SOME CASES ARE NOW HIGHER THAN HUMAN WORKERS.

Ai has for years been sold at below cost to encourage people to use it.

Add the additional issue that as models have increased in size the number of tokens used also increases and it’s getting to the point that a human being is cheaper than AI for the same task.

That isn’t to say that AI is a dead end but it’s going to be a niche product that doesn’t justify the current optimistic valuations