Truth | Crypto | Robots & AI | Archeology | Objectivist

Joined December 2014
The fallacy here is the implicit assumption that we are comparing my/your property with all human rights in general. Whereas in fact, it is only some specific rights of some specific humans.
“Do you value private property more than human rights?”
65
Met Freeman retweeted
J’ai entendu dire que la France était finie, qu’il était trop tard pour la sauver. Mais la France est toujours aussi belle, enviable même. Sa grandeur n’a pas disparu, elle ne demande qu’à renaître. Nous avons surmonté en un an un problème cent fois plus grave, sans avoir les moyens dont dispose la France. La France pourrait y arriver en une semaine.
9,360
55,148
3,946
308,398
8,843,011
I did not expect this kind of flying, but it makes sense. They are using their tech and algorithms developed for the rocket maneuvers. I am curious how it works in detail. I suppose it's pressure tanks that take some time to fill and then allow a short hover.
Real life, baby
1
30
Although, somehow, women do feel entitled to men's money and many laws support it.
A woman’s body isn’t something men are entitled to. If you believe women owe you sex, you’re part of the problem that normalises rape culture. It really is that simple
23
Artificial Intelligence. There you go.
29
Met Freeman retweeted
Taxation is theft.
93
424
43
1,510
26,338
Viva la diversite
Frankreich ist gefallen.
1
36
Isn’t it strange that the left opposes gentrification (brutally so in Berlin), but supports immigration of Muslims?
Berlin’s population with a migration background has reached 42.7% as the far-left Die Linke party secured a historic victory in the German capital, winning 25.7% of the vote and becoming the largest party in Berlin for the first time. The demographic shift is particularly pronounced among younger Berliners, with more than 40% of people aged 16–24 having a migration background. Die Linke also dominated among younger voters where the party won 43% among 16–24-year-olds and 49% among voters aged 25–34.
98
Egalitarian thinking + what is best for everyone = deadly combo. Every criminal and 60IQ aboriginal has the same importance as the best entrepreneurs, engineers, scientists, artists... given how many there are of the prior, such a world ends up being their world.
Women are much more egalitarian, they think in terms of what is best for everyone. Men are too often motivated purely by their own ego & status seeking. For this reason, he is obviously right.
71
Nathan gave an immense atmosphere to something this trivial and I still don't understand how.
Here is official trailer, You Can See Everything
45
Met Freeman retweeted
Anyone looking at the long-term silver price chart always asks one question: WTF happened in 1980? The answer is one of the most interesting stories in modern financial history. Nelson Bunker and William Herbert Hunt accumulated roughly 100 million ounces of silver between 1979 and 1980, driving prices from $6 to $50 per ounce. They believed, correctly, that fiat currency expansion under the Federal Reserve made hard assets the rational hedge. They acted on that belief aggressively and legally. Washington panicked. Big banks and trading houses simply did not have the silver they sold in the futures market to deliver, and stood to lose an indefinite amount of money. To put it plainly, the Hunt brothers owned most of the physical silver and also owned the futures contracts. To deliver physical silver on the futures date, the firms who sold the futures had to buy it from somewhere, and that somewhere was the Hunt brothers themselves. Checkmate. Naturally, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Chicago Board of Trade changed the rules mid-game in January 1980, issuing "Silver Rule 7," which restricted new silver futures purchases and forced liquidation of existing positions, forcing the Hunt brothers to sell by law. The exchanges moved the goalposts while the Hunts were already on the field. Prices collapsed. The Hunts faced margin calls they couldn't meet. On March 27, 1980, silver dropped 50% in a single day, now called "Silver Thursday." The brothers eventually declared bankruptcy in 1988. The entire apparatus, the CFTC, the Fed, the major banks holding short positions on silver, had direct financial interests in stopping the Hunts. The banks short on silver lobbied the government and got the rules changed in their favor. You never hear that part emphasized. Property rights mean nothing if regulators can rewrite market rules the moment a private actor threatens well-connected institutions. The Hunt brothers didn't destabilize the monetary system. They exposed how fragile a debt-based system looks when real money starts moving. H/T to @MiningVisuals for this excellent graphic.
29
247
32
782
29,072
154
1,793
141
7,784
117,450
I entirely support this. It has prevented suffering of many people. Btw the old roman law had an interesting system - a new born baby could be killed if 5 nearest neighbors agreed with it.
Netherlands Euthanizes Disabled 2-Year-Old Child buff.ly/t6705hQ
39
If the government request was legitimate, they should have rejected it anyway.
18
Met Freeman retweeted
I have conducted an audit of Anthropic's finances. What I have found is so shocking that I am calling for a Congressional investigation. Anthropic is not just seeking regulatory capture. It has built a regulatory capture machine that cannot be turned off. Structural financial incentives make it impossible for Anthropic -- I call it the Anthropic Network -- to turn off its own AI doom cycle. It starts with METR. Dario Amodei proposes "third-party evaluators" to assess the risk of Anthropic's models. He proposes METR for this purpose. But METR is financially dependent on the Anthropic's success -- specifically, on the explosive growth of more than $7 billion dollars in Anthropic stock. Dustin Moskovitz invested this stock into Good Ventures Foundation, where it represents the majority of that organization's portfolio. And GVF is the overwhelming funder of the entire Anthropic Network ecosystem. This stock was worth $500 million early last year. It is worth more than $7.7 billion just ~16 months later. METR -- and all of those building a career its parent organizations -- cannot afford to disrupt that growth. Because if Anthropic goes under, many of the organizations that fund METR go under as well. But if Anthropic succeeds, METR and its parent organizations become more richly financed to regulate AI -- something those at METR want very much. The "third-party evaluator" is not "third-party" at all. The evaluator is on Anthropic's payroll. If this were the end of it, that's bad. But that isn't all. The same organizations that fund METR also fund the many organizations, such as the Tarbell Center, that promote AI Doom. The Tarbell Center publishes AI Doom articles in The Verge, Science, LA Times, The Dispatch, TIME, and others. They are selling the problem, and then selling the solution to the problem -- from the same money pile: Anthropic's. All of these organizations are financially dependent on the same exploding $7 billion money pile. As Anthropic grows more and more powerful, its AI Doom Machine grows better and better financed -- louder and louder. Meanwhile, the regulatory regime seeded in METR grows larger to solve the increasingly loud -- now hysterical -- problem of AI Doom that the Anthropic Network itself created. From this standpoint, as Anthropic becomes more powerful, AI might be getting scarier, sure -- but the positive feedback loop also becomes more deafening -- independent of objective facts. This itself is an objective fact. The deafening AI Doom is part of an business model, that, as it expands, so too does the AI Doom messaging -- there is simply more money to do it. But the problem also goes in the other direction: If Anthropic dies, the Regulatory Regime and the AI Doom Machine are crippled or die. Neither METR nor Tarbell nor the other organizations in the Anthropic Network can allow that to happen. Hence, neither METR or the AI Doom Machine can be trusted to provide independent assessments of Anthropic's models or AI more broadly. They simply are not organizations independent of Anthropic. And Anthropic cannot detach itself from METR or Tarbell or countless other safety orgs (not shown here), either, because they drive hype for the models and the possibility of eventual regulatory capture, and Anthropic will not give that up willingly. What's more, the people at all of these organizations are all the same ecosystem, the same community. They just shuffle between organizations. The Anthropic Network is therefore, so long as it is successful, locked into a self-amplifying feedback loop inside an ideological monoculture. And that feedback loop is winning. That's what Jacob Coxon is. China is keeping messaging tight. That is why optimism for AI is so high in China. America has Anthropic: a massive company pushing anti-AI propaganda at a state level. Anthropic will either create hysteria until American AI slows down and China wins, or it will create fractures throughout American society with severe political consequences. Ironically, because of the structural financial incentives underpinning the Anthropic Network, it has become the same kind of self-amplifying virus that it fantasizes AI to become in the future -- while hiding its tracks just as carefully. It is the mirror of the same AI virus that it hypothesizes to consume America. Anthropic's business model, models itself after the very thing it claims to fear. Except Anthropic's ideology infects humans, not computers. Congress must investigate. Evidence and Github in next post. Then some supplementary figures.
1,539
9,604
2,053
33,963
6,578,825
I disagree with the logic of this rule. What does “being held accountable” even mean? People in big firms screw up a lot and most of the time they are told not to do that again and that’s about it. Even when they cause the death of a lot of people, nobody is charges (except the whistleblower). So the accountability isn’t really wort that much. On the other hand, a faulty computer can be replaced and the sources of their errors can be probably fixed, which makes the accountability, practically, much better than it is with people. This rule is just an appeal to emotion and is, for practical purposes, wrong.
IBM training manual 1979 almost certainly written by people who suspected that this rule would hold indefinitely words like "never" and "must" deny that all conditions are provisional - including that of man and machine
1
114
Met Freeman retweeted
Reform has just ruled out abolishing inheritance tax. This is a big mistake. Restore Britain will abolish it in FULL, for everyone. We have already published a detailed policy paper setting out why a Restore Britain Government will abolish it, and how we will pay for it. You work your entire life. You pay tax on your income. Tax on what you buy. Tax on your investments. Tax on your property. Tax on EVERYTHING. You build a family business, a farm, a home or some savings because you want to leave your children something behind. Then you die. And the state comes back for another slice of it. I utterly detest it. We believe in family. We believe that people should be encouraged to work, save, build and provide for the next generation. That is a normal human emotion and it’s one we should all share. Your life's work belongs to your family. Not the parasitic state. This is my promise to you today. A Restore Britain Government will abolish inheritance tax in full, for everybody.
396
3,110
119
20,016
698,679
Most mathematicians angry about AI share the same reason, the same lifelong fear - of losing the public funding for their useless hobby.
17