Maybe, but speaking for myself, my revulsion to the way they are currently trying to use AI is nothing short of visceral. No headline has a chance. It is such an intrusion to personal privacy, and toward incredibly bad ends all around, that I don’t give a shit what they say at all.
To get past that, they’d have to stop trying to data farm everything that crosses someone’s monitor, stop using AI to support and further large-scale national operations like genocide, and not use every word that anyone’s ever written that they can get their hands on to train their LLMs. Oh, and something more than a “You’re overreacting!” when it is pointed out that AI output is not at all neutral, but shaped to deliver their own chosen narratives, which its devotees tend to accept without question. They could even – and I know this is a novel concept – pay authors and artists for all the work they used without consent and without compensation.
It’ll never happen. And I will never not hate AI, for all of these reasons and more (like how they took my fucking em-dash and made it unnatural, so now I’m taking it back).
TL;DR: I hate AI so much and so deeply it’s automatic, there’s literally nothing they can say I would care about, and the more they try the more repulsed I am. Fuck 'em all.
Honestly, I would expect a new Nullification Crisis much sooner than 2028, sooner even than midterms, inasmuch as the federal government, under this regime, is literally waging war – or trying very hard to start a real one – against the state of Minnesota, among others. A state could easily say, “Enough!” long before November rolls around.
I’m not saying Walz would do this, but hypothetically, a state that has enough of this federal incursion that finds no real respite in the courts, or finds itself being actively bankrupted or otherwise destroyed, could simply start nullifying the most onerous orders, or really, any federal orders, because at that point, restraint would make no real difference, as hypothetically every other imaginable remedy would already have been tried. Its exercise would hypothetically be the step immediately prior to secession, probably discussed directly as such, and like 1832 before it, the direct cause would likely be financial because unlike then, today the executive is already engaging in the use of force against a state.
The interesting thing, to me, is that the Nullification Crisis ended peacefully and fairly quickly in spite of the Force Bill because at the end of the day, both parties strove to find a solution that would preserve the union. Andrew Jackson being marginally less shitty and somewhat more sane than the current executive, they succeeded in that, so the Force Bill was never relied upon to use military might against a state’s nullification.
That is NOT the case here. In fact, we’re already past it. There have already been National Guard troops in the streets, on orders that were subsequently deemed unlawful by the courts, and we haven’t even really gotten near the federal defiance of Posse Comitatus and/or formally using the Insurrection Act yet, events that are almost certain to come as well. The fed does NOT want peace: if it can push a state to open fighting it will, and as far as I can see is already working strenuously to that end wherever it can. So from where I’m sitting, at that final point of provocation, whatever it ends up being, state nullification doesn’t look very much different from secession at all, either in execution or federal response to same.
Also, not really on topic but I’m just going to throw in a gentle reminder that it would take no more than a handful of Republicans in the House and Senate to put a stop to all this madness TODAY. That’s not an absolute majority, of course, but it is more than enough to rein in that tertiary syphilitic madness enough to make the threats to both domestic and international targets stop instantly.