Twitter/X

Dean W.

Brief

Dean W. Ball (@deanwball) argues Hyperdimensional targets frontier lab leaders and staff, not policymakers, and that (as of 2026-05-11) the federal government is 'barely a live player' in AI. He portrays the state as an 'old man' and primary downside risk, advising placation rituals, downside management, then stepping back so industry-driven work continues.

Why it matters

Dean W. Ball (@deanwball) says Hyperdimensional was primarily targeted at frontier lab leadership and staff; any influence on policymakers is a 'happy byproduct' (posted 2026-05-11).

Key details

  • He claims the federal government is 'barely a live player' in AI and should be modeled as a primary source of downside risk for almost all policy goals — exception: 'pauser/banner' actors whose aims require coercive state power.
  • He advises a tactical posture: perform small rituals to placate the government (let it 'pretend' to lead), manage downside risk, then 'get the hell out' and let non-governmental American institutions carry the actual work.
Source evidence

When I started Hyperdimensional, the primary audience I had in mind was frontier lab leadership and staff. Any influence it has had on policymakers is a happy byproduct, but truly, to young people in this field, let me spell this out:

The federal government is barely a live player. They’re going to pretend to do stuff on AI, and while it’s important that we all let them pretend to be leaders, the actual work is going to take place within other organs of American society.

You should model the federal government as primarily a source of downside risk, almost regardless of your policy goal (exception is if you’re a pauser/banner, in which case, yes, your policy objectives require the thuggish violence of the ruler).

I often liken the federal government to an old man, pretending to remain pater familias while his mortgage is paid for by his children, whom I imagine as all the economically productive parts of America.

The kids may pay the mortgage, but here’s the thing: the old man still does own the house! He can disinherit you if you anger him. He has no real authority anymore as a parent, but he still has the power to hurt you very badly. And his mind is going, so there is little love left to be nourished.

So in the end, coldly, you come to see that this old man, who was once a figure of authority (Or was he? Maybe now you just see him with clearer vision. Anyway, it doesn’t really matter.) is primarily a source of downside risk. He is primarily an increasingly erratic and confused shell of himself, he is prone to scared-animal reactions, and all he knows how to do—the only thing his fading mind has preserved—is hurt you.

If you are in the unfortunate predicament of the younger generation, the wise thing to do is not so much to talk about any of this but instead avoid it. Let him pretend to cut the turkey at Thanksgiving, let him sit at the head of the table and nibble on the food he pretends to serve (but that in fact the kids served). And then you get the hell out once the ritual is done.

That is basically the posture any productive American should take with respect to the federal government right now. Manage the downside risk, do the little rituals and make the old man feel in charge, and then get back to business as quickly as you can. The country rests on your shoulders, though it is important we pretend that the federal government is also bearing their share of the load.