TGFI, Volume 552: why Stanford will endure, AIs erasing anonymity

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

1. Col­lege Won’t Get Fixed. But It Also Won’t Dis­ap­pear. (Tyler Cowen, The Free Press): “The Ivies and oth­er top schools will prove invul­ner­a­ble. Their val­ue for net­work­ing, and also as a dat­ing and mar­riage ser­vice, is unpar­al­leled. There are no trends that threat­en to dis­rupt those func­tions. If these insti­tu­tions can prove use­ful in oth­er ways too, such as learn­ing and research, con­sid­er that gravy.”
2. I can nev­er talk to an AI anony­mous­ly again (Kelsey Piper, The Argu­ment): “From only the above text, 125 words, Claude Opus 4.7 informed me that the like­li­est author is Kelsey Piper. This is an Opus 4.7‑specific pow­er; Chat­G­PT guessed Ygle­sias, and Gem­i­ni guessed Scott Alexan­der. I did not have mem­o­ry enabled, nor did I have infor­ma­tion about me asso­ci­at­ed with my account; I did these tests in Incog­ni­to Mode. To make sure it wasn’t some­how feed­ing my account infor­ma­tion to Claude even in Incog­ni­to Mode, I asked a friend to run these tests on his com­put­er, and he received the same result; I also got the same result when I test­ed it through the API.…. I think the amount of pub­lic text that is need­ed for this kind of deanonymiza­tion to work is like­ly to even­tu­al­ly decrease. You should expect that, if you leave a detailed anony­mous review on Glass­door after leav­ing your job, with­in a year or two it will be pos­si­ble for com­pa­nies to paste that text into an AI and learn exact­ly who wrote it. How long it takes for this to hap­pen will depend on how much data about you is in the train­ing data and on how much anony­mous text you pro­duced.”
3. AI Is Not Drain­ing the Col­orado Riv­er. I Mea­sured It. (Len Nece­fer, Out­side): “I work on the Col­orado Riv­er water for a liv­ing as a film­mak­er and sto­ry­teller. I have a PhD in engi­neer­ing and pub­lic pol­i­cy. I am Diné. The threats to the riv­er are not abstract to me; they are very real. So ear­li­er this year, I decid­ed to quan­ti­fy some­thing that has been miss­ing in the con­ver­sa­tion about AI and water: I mea­sured my own AI water use. For 11 weeks, I tracked all of my AI use. One hun­dred ses­sions. I count­ed the tokens processed and applied pub­licly avail­able num­bers on per-token ener­gy and water inten­si­ty from Epoch AI and oper­a­tor-report­ed data from Microsoft and Google. Any­one can run this math. In those 11 weeks, I built an iOS app from scratch and wrote pol­i­cy briefs on extreme heat for non­prof­its I work with. I pro­duced doc­u­men­tary pitch decks and draft­ed a 15,000-word cli­mate fic­tion piece about the Col­orado Riv­er col­lapse. I used AI every sin­gle day, often for hours at a time. Total life­cy­cle water foot­print of all that work: about five gal­lons. That accounts for every­thing: the water used to cool the data cen­ters, the water con­sumed at pow­er plants to gen­er­ate the elec­tric­i­ty, and the water embed­ded in man­u­fac­tur­ing the hard­ware.”
4. Anthrop­ic Wants Claude to Be Moral. Is Reli­gion Real­ly the Answer? (David DeSteno, New York Times): “Anthropic’s inten­tions are admirable, but the project of draw­ing on reli­gion to cul­ti­vate the eth­i­cal behav­ior of Claude (or any oth­er chat­bot) is like­ly to fail. Not because there isn’t moral wis­dom in Scrip­ture, ser­mons and the­o­log­i­cal trea­tis­es — texts that Claude has undoubt­ed­ly already scraped from the web and inte­grat­ed — but because Claude is miss­ing a cru­cial mech­a­nism by which reli­gion fos­ters moral growth: a body.” — Far more inter­est­ing than I expect­ed. I almost skipped because I imag­ined I knew where the author was going. I was quite wrong. The author is a psy­chol­o­gy pro­fes­sor at North­east­ern. FYI: the author is not per­son­al­ly reli­gious, he just stud­ies reli­gion.
5. A Brief His­to­ry of Singing in the Ear­ly Chris­t­ian Church (pod­cast, 33 min­utes): Accord­ing to Augus­tine, Ambrose re-intro­duced the prac­tice of con­gre­ga­tion­al singing of hymns in the west­ern church, which rais­es the ques­tion of what had hap­pened to singing before that. An inter­est­ing lis­ten. Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent.
6. There’s a Rea­son Amer­i­cans Hold Israel to a High­er Stan­dard (Ross Douthat, New York Times): “…Amer­i­cans have a fun­da­men­tal­ly dif­fer­ent rela­tion­ship to Jews, Judaism, Zion­ism and Israel than to any of the ‘much worse gov­ern­ments’ that Gur is refer­ring to — Sau­di Ara­bia and its war in Yemen is his prime exam­ple, but one could make a much longer list of author­i­tar­i­an states whose war crimes pass with­out suf­fi­cient notice.… So part of the answer to Gur’s ques­tion — why do West­ern­ers freak out in a unique way about Israel pol­i­cy? — is con­nect­ed to iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, not hos­til­i­ty, and to the feel­ing that Israel is part of our zone of iden­ti­ty and respon­si­bil­i­ty in a way that the Sau­di monar­chy is not.”
7. Three arti­cles about the South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter case:
   • The SPLC Tar­get­ed Me. Now Its Reck­on­ing Has Come. (Ayaan Hir­si Ali, The Free Press): “A fed­er­al grand jury in Mont­gomery, Alaba­ma, on Tues­day issued an 11-count indict­ment against the South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter (SPLC). The charges include wire fraud, bank fraud, and con­spir­a­cy to com­mit mon­ey laun­der­ing. Pros­e­cu­tors allege that between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC fun­neled more than $3 mil­lion of donors’ mon­ey to mem­bers of groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, and the Nation­al Social­ist Movement—groups it simul­ta­ne­ous­ly con­demned in fundrais­ing let­ters and press releas­es. To move the mon­ey, the SPLC alleged­ly used fic­ti­tious busi­ness names. For many of us who spent years on the receiv­ing end of the organization’s lists and labels, the indict­ment itself was no sur­prise. What sur­prised us was that it took until 2026 to arrive.”
   • The SPLC Has Spread Hate. Is It Guilty of a Crime? (Jed Ruben­field, The Free Press): “Is there any evi­dence that the SPLC col­lect­ed sub­stan­tial dona­tions by ‘stok­ing’ the ‘racial hatred’ it told donors it was fight­ing? That’s a shock­ing, vicious accu­sa­tion, and the sto­ry recount­ed in the indict­ment con­tains near­ly noth­ing specif­i­cal­ly sup­port­ing it.… At the end of the day, the non­le­gal case against the South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter may be stronger than the legal case.”
     • The author is a law pro­fes­sor at Yale.
   • How the South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter Drew the Ire of Con­ser­v­a­tives (Richard Faus­set, New York Times): “For much of the 21st cen­tu­ry, the South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter has been at the cen­ter of a bit­ter par­ti­san war in Amer­i­ca over what con­sti­tutes hate. The law cen­ter, which is based in Alaba­ma, began in 1971, earn­ing a rep­u­ta­tion for bat­tling the Ku Klux Klan in court and help­ing reporters and law enforce­ment keep tabs on far-right domes­tic extrem­ists. More recent­ly, how­ev­er, the S.P.L.C. has earned the ire of con­ser­v­a­tives by crit­i­ciz­ing a num­ber of orga­ni­za­tions — includ­ing Moms For Lib­er­ty, the Fam­i­ly Research Coun­cil and Turn­ing Point USA — that many on the right con­sid­er to be square­ly with­in the Amer­i­can main­stream.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

• Inte­ger pro­gram­ming eas­i­ly enclos­es horse (Sub­stack): “So, since I can’t enjoy this kind of game, I thought I’d try to ruin it for every­one by show­ing that it’s extreme­ly easy for machines.” Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent.

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it). And to the extent you can dis­cern my opin­ions, please under­stand that they are my own and not nec­es­sar­i­ly those of Chi Alpha or any oth­er orga­ni­za­tion I may be per­ceived to rep­re­sent. Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it. If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.