October 30th • 3h 23m
Shownotes
Every new episode of No Agenda is accompanied by a comprehensive list of shownotes curated by Adam while preparing for the show. Clips played by the hosts during the show can also be found here.
Big Tech AI and the Socials
Intersection of "AI companions," kids, and online age-verification
Adam—Senators Blumenthal, Hawley, and others just
introduced a bill to require age-verification systems for “AI
companions” and “AI chatbots.” This touches on several issues you’ve
reported on—age-verification, AI bots as personal companions, sexual
grooming, etc. I’ve attached an article and the proposed legislation
for your reading pleasure. (Your friends at callthesuits.com / suitsaccidentinjurylawyers.com are on the case!)
Summary: This
bill is called the GUARD Act (“Guidelines for User Age-verification and
Responsible Dialogue Act of 2025”). If enacted, it will force AI
providers to implement age-verification measures that use government IDs
or “any other commercially reasonable method” to distinguish minors
from adults. The idea is to prevent minors from using certain AI
functionality such as sex-related conversations or “AI companions”
(chatbots designed to simulate “interpersonal or emotional interaction,
friendship, companionship, or therapeutic communication”). Also under
the bill, no chatbot may encourage suicide or physical injury by
anyone—minors or adults. Also, the bots must disclose that they’re not
human and not licensed professionals.
Some particulars:
For age-verification, simply entering a date of birth online will not suffice.
Age-verification
would need to be “periodically” reviewed. Providers may not assume
that a verified user’s IP address or device is being used by that same
verified user. (I don’t know how this will work—will you have to verify
age every session? Will you have to take a live photo or video before
each session?)
Existing accounts would be frozen until initial age-verification is complete.
Providers may use third parties to conduct this process. (Exit-strategy alert.)
What
could possibly go wrong? The bill promises to “limit collection of
personal data” and “protect [its] integrity and confidentiality.”
Edward Snowden was unavailable for comment.
Also, chatbots will have to make various “disclosures”:
They must disclose that they’re not human.
They
must disclose that they’re not licensed professionals, such as
“therapist[s], physician[s], lawyer[s], financial advisor[s], or other
professional[s].”
They must repeat these disclosures at regular intervals.
Crimes and civil penalties: The
bill would amend Title 18 of the United States Code, which governs
federal crimes. It would make it a crime to “design, develop, or make
available” a chatbot if you know or recklessly disregard the possibility
that it will (1) engage in sexual conversations with minors or (2)
encourage suicide or violence by anyone (minor or not). The penalty is
up to $100K (no imprisonment prescribed).
It
would also impose civil penalties on providers who either fail to
complete age-verification or allow minors to access AI companions. That
penalty is $100K per violation. Expensive.
Search This Phrase and You'll Find Sensitive Corporate Docs Online | PCMag
ite:claude.ai + internal use onl
Pluralistic: When AI prophecy fails (29 Oct 2025) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
Amazon made $35 billion in profit last year, so they're celebrating by laying off 14,000 workers (a number they say will rise to 30,000). This is the kind of thing that Wall Street _loves_, and this layoff comes after a string of pronouncements from Amazon CEO Andy Jassy about how AI is going to let them fire _tons_ of workers.
That's the AI story, after all. It's not about making workers more productive or creative. The only way to recoup the $700 billion in capital expenditure to date (to say nothing of AI companies' rather fanciful coming capex commitments) is by displacing workers – a _lot_ of workers. Bain & Co say the sector needs to be grossing $2 trillion by 2030 in order to break even, which is more than the combined grosses of Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple Nvidia and Meta:
Arctic Frost Autopen and More
Trump's Appellate Brief in NY Criminal Case
Adam—It seems like the trial was eons ago, but the
criminal conviction against Trump is still on appeal. Yesterday, he
filed his brief. It’s long, but I’ve highlighted it for you so you can
whip through it. It’s written by Sullivan & Cromwell, that
old-school white-shoe law firm that’s among the best of the best. Trump
is rightly sparing no expense here.
In case you’re interested, here’s a rundown of Trump’s five arguments.
Federal preemption: Trump argues that the DA of NYC (“DANY”) prosecuted him for state-law violations that are preempted (and thus nullified) by federal law. While the DANY has the authority to prosecute violations of state law by state office-seekers, he lacks such authority for federal candidates.
Evidence of immune conduct:
to SCOTUS, is inadmissible because it entails official presidential
Trump argues that the court allowed evidence of conduct that, according
acts that are immune from prosecution. This evidence should never have
been admitted under SCOTUS precedent, and letting it in tainted the
jury. Trump says that this requires automatic reversal.
Faulty jury instructions:
Trump argues that the jury charge was structured so that he could be
convicted of conspiracy even if they could not unanimously agree on a
specific “predicate act.” This is against NY law and a violation of due
process.
Insufficient evidence:
Trump argues that there was no evidence that he had any intent to
defraud anyone—rendering the evidence legally insufficient to support a
verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Justice Merchan should have recused himself:
Trump argues that Justice Juan Merchan—who the NY State Commission on
Judicial Conduct found violated judicial-ethics rules—was required to recuse himself, and that his failure to do so prejudiced Trump’s right to a fair trial.
These
arguments are very good—especially 1 through 3, because they’re pure
questions of law. This is important because the trial judge and jury
don’t enjoy any deference on such questions.
Arguments 4 and 5 are different (although still pretty good):
Argument 4 will entail a pissing match about whether the jury could have inferred intent from the evidence it did have. All doubts will be resolved in favor of the verdict because the jury gets great deference here.
Argument
5 (in my opinion, the juiciest one) will entail disputes over whether
Justice Merchan abused his discretion on the recusal issue. He is
tasked with deciding whether his own impartiality “might reasonably be
questioned” in light of his daughter’s financial interest in a Trump
conviction and his political contributions against the very defendant before him.
On this question, he enjoys a healthy dose of deference. This
deference will be buttressed by the judicial commission’s conclusion
that he didn’t have to recuse himself even though he broke the rules.
Still, anyone can see how rotten this is, and it’s my fervent hope that
the appeals court will see how badly his actions reflect on the bench.
I’ve known a lot of judges, and they’re extremely careful about this
stuff. Justice Merchan was downright reckless, and his refusal to
recuse appears self-serving in the extreme.
Bottom
line, arguments 1 through 3 have a much better chance of a clean kill
since they will be reviewed “de novo”—from scratch, without deferring to
anyone else.
If any of these
arguments hold up (and we’re only seeing one side here), I think Trump’s
conviction will get flipped. This is most likely to happen under
arguments 1, 2, and/or 3. If so, the indictment will be dismissed.
Keep in mind, however, that even the best arguments face headwinds
because appellate judges do not like to reverse jury verdicts and prefer
not to call out their fellow judges unless they have to.
Soon,
the government will file its response brief. I’m not familiar with
NY’s rules in criminal appeals, but the deadline is probably around 30
days. This deadline will almost certainly be extended. Then Trump will
file a reply brief, and the appeals court will set oral argument. My
guess is that oral argument will happen in late Q1 of 2026, perhaps Q2.
EU UK Ukraine and NATO
Dutch Elections
The first exit polls show the globalist D66 Party as the winner of the Dutch election, beating Wilders’ PVV who suffered a big loss.
That means more mass migration, more replacement, more climate regulations, more censorship, more EU, more gender madness and Rob Jetten, a woke, openly gay Champagne socialist, will most likely become the country’s Prime Minister.
Gripen
I'm a former insider on the project, so keep my name out from everything. And yes the Gripen (Griffin in English) is a very good plane. The version Ukraine signed the letter of intent on is the 39E version this plane is a very new plane, first delivery to the Swedish Air Force was just last week. You also have the 39CD version, that is operational around the world, it is not the same plane even that they look and are named the same. So the plane that was used in Thailand some time ago was not the E version but the CD version.
Israel
Tucker - Fuentes
He's a political guy with a PAC
FBI vs CIA war is now officially over
NSN - ARC
Trump South Korea YMCA dance
