It is normal for psychiatrists to examine patients before giving their diagnosis. This strikes us as sensible. But Bandy X. Lee, psychologist and Yale Professor, decided that when assessing the cognitive competence of President Trump such quaint protocols no longer apply. Following her example, Chadwick Moore, writing in The Spectator USA, uses his psycho-analytic acumen to examine some media personalities. Mr. Moore is a journalist. But he demonstrates conclusively that you don’t need a fancy degree to take the measure of someone’s mental health. What is most needed are strong opinions, the conviction that you are sane and grounded, and the certitude that you are a morally superior specimen. Fortunately, there appears to be no shortage of qualified individuals.

Keeping the AI Apocalypse at Bay
Writing in City Journal, Judge Glock examines legal efforts to control AI and dismisses the current fixation on suing for specific harms, such as bad advice. “The idea that we should treat Big Tech, including AI companies, like we treated Big Tobacco, is exactly the wrong idea,” he observes. A better approach is to assess product liability based on which parties can perform the task at the cheapest cost, as is the case with the regulation of medical equipment. This “has the benefit of putting the onus on companies themselves to game out dangerous scenarios and prevent them,” he advises. For more on AI, see this C2C article.


