Moloch omnia regit.
Joined April 2021
- Tweets25.2K
- Following406
- Followers201
- Likes25.5K
Holy crap. Ben Affleck is a lot smarter than I thought.
Rational Libertarian (ai/nke) retweeted
“Since wealth is the only thing that can cure poverty, you might think that the left would be as obsessed with the creation of wealth as they are with the redistribution of wealth. But you would be wrong.”
— Thomas Sowell
Rational Libertarian (ai/nke) retweeted
Elon Musk will be risking his entire company and his life if Starlink itself becomes an offensive weaon of war, while nobody demanding it is willing to risk anything or even suggest direct intervention in the war.
Rational Libertarian (ai/nke) retweeted
i don't believe "mathematics is the language of the universe". the universe does what it does, it doesn't need a "language". math is a human attempt to describe the universe, and as such, it is an abstraction, an approximation, and at least one step removed from reality.
Rational Libertarian (ai/nke) retweeted
Capitalism lets people who can’t stand each other make each other richer. Your revolution can’t survive a disagreement in the group chat.
Rational Libertarian (ai/nke) retweeted
if women want to play dress up and pretend to be a masculine, empowered sportsball helper, then they can’t cry when they are treated like a man and expect some sort of privilege.
Rational Libertarian (ai/nke) retweeted
“Women talk a lot about how scared of male violence they are, but from their behavior it's clear they never actually consider it a possibility”
When I was eighteen I was out for the night with my bf and some friends, we were barhopping in Kings Cross. I was tipsy & occasionally lippy & obnoxious towards strangers (who were asking for it!).
My bf quietly & discreetly at one point during the night said “babe, I love you, but fuck sometimes I worry that you’re writing cheques I won’t be able to cash, if it comes to and I’m on my own”. I was like “wtf are you talking about?”
He literally had to explain to me that if I was being a fuckwit starting trouble, he’d obviously have to defend me if anything went down, and if I’m being a massive smart ass and it’s just like him & me & my best girlfriend, then he’s going to be in a fight on his own. All because I was being an antagonistic smart ass to some strangers who couldn’t take a joke.
The idea that I needed to be able to back up my words with violence if it came to it, was something that had literally never occurred to me. Ever.
It was a total revelation. Suddenly i realised talk wasn’t “cheap” in this context, it was expensive. The idea that I could effectively get him beaten up, or put him in real danger, by being a precocious little shit arguing with idiots because I could, was horrifying.
From then on I was extremely reluctant to ever argue with strangers or act like a smart ass unnecessarily, because I was suddenly keenly aware that the guys we were with could potentially be expected to pay with their lives for any poorly received flippant comments we made.
It really was totally novel to me. This isn’t how women see the world, at all.
Ideally, he wouldn't have reacted like this
But any guy is aware that when you shove another man, getting lightly swatted (or more) is 100% on the table, so they won't do it unless they're being intentionally aggressive
Women talk a lot about how scared of male violence they are, but from their behavior it's clear they never actually consider it a possibility
We don't live in the 60s. You're shoving a steroid user on an athletic scholarship in the middle of a football game. You have to understand that this inherently comes with a degree of danger
Rational Libertarian (ai/nke) retweeted
"Ban guns and there will be less gun deaths"
Listen up, because I'm going to explain why this isn't true.
If you ban guns, most law-abiding people won't keep them. This might reduce gun deaths slightly, but law-abiding people basically don't shoot each other much. You get the occasional crime of passion and the odd gun accident, but these are rare enough to be almost statistical noise.
What you would see is a large drop in gun suicides. But one of the things that is well known about suicide statistics is the people who really want to kill themselves readily substitute means. So they would off themselves in other ways, for no net decrease in anything we really care about.
Meanwhile, criminals are going to laugh at your gun ban. They will still have firearms. They will still kill each other with firearms at a pretty horrific rate that we couldn't expect to change much after the ban.
What will change is that criminals will see firearms as a more effective tool for predation, because the victim population is disarmed and can't shoot back. There will be more crime, and more gun deaths, because of this.
This isn't just theory. We can study longitudinal crime statistics in jurisdictions before and after gun bans and see it in practice.
To "reduce gun deaths" significantly, you'd have to find a way to remove guns from the hands of criminals, and then keep them inaccessible to criminals. There is no known way to do this that actually works reliably, and doesn't have other costs that are too high for a free society to pay.
Rational Libertarian (ai/nke) retweeted
Capability vs. Safety resource allocation:
Nuclear: 60/40
Aviation: 60/40
Medical devices: 20/80
AI: 99/1
Do I understand the situation correctly?
Rational Libertarian (ai/nke) retweeted
Tragically, when I first saw the movie “Don’t Look Up” in 2021, it struck a chord with me. I felt viscerally that humans would find ourselves in a comparable place one day - and soon.
If you haven’t seen the movie, I’d recommend it. A quick recap: Humans were explicitly warned that a comet that could destroy Earth was heading rapidly toward us. And instead of doing anything to stop it, the president, elected leaders and billionaire CEOs just spewed some bullshit about all the “jobs the comet would create.” The media treated the comet as casual entertainment. The public was split and the entire thing gets politicized. The movie ends with nearly all of human life wiped out.
Just about a year ago I had the opportunity to join a bipartisan freshman class breakfast with Sam Altman. I was shocked when he said to us, “in 18 months, I’ll trust artificial superintelligence to run my company better than I can.” I regret I didn’t engage more on this issue immediately.
Now here we are - it’s 2026 and engineers at the world’s leading AI companies are telling us that there is a >10% chance that artificial intelligence could kill all humans. They’re not mincing their words in the slightest. Not because of present day AI capabilities, but because it is evolving so exponentially that we could be in a doomsday scenario in a year. One year.
This is fucking serious. We need to halt new advanced AI development. We need guardrails, transparency and emergency powers. We need more employees at these companies to speak out publicly, loudly and fearlessly until everyone is forced to listen. We need the media to be covering this 24/7 until elected officials are forced to act. We need the Trump Administration to treat this with the urgency it deserves. We need the ability to shut an AI model off if there’s a credible threat to human life. The list goes on - and we don’t even know what the full list entails because this is all happening so fast. That’s why we need urgent, bipartisan public hearings and committees dedicated to developing and enacting solutions expeditiously.
This isn’t partisan. Let’s stop with the bullshit and come together for the sake of our shared humanity. I’m a 34-year-old Democratic Congresswoman, and I’d like to live to see my late 30s. I know my Republican colleagues want the same for themselves and their loved ones.
None of us can afford to be complacent about this any longer.
Rational Libertarian (ai/nke) retweeted
There are currently zero things more important than "don't die to AI" becoming a bipartisan project rather than a Democrat-polarized issue. If you have any political capital you can spend on this, do it now, I beg of you. Life or death.
The future is gonna be so ugly.
We’re going to solve alignment, but discover that even aligned ASI is banned.
Dario Amodei, Elon Musk and Sam Altman now agree that we must slow down the development of AI and “pace the frontier.”
That’s a start, but it’s not enough.
When you are racing towards a cliff, you don’t just ease up on the gas pedal. You hit the brakes.
When the future of humanity is at stake we need a PAUSE on advanced AI development and a ban on artificial superintelligence — an AI mind smarter than any human and capable of operating independently beyond our control.
At their upcoming AI summit, Trump and Xi must negotiate a treaty to pause AI and ban superintelligence before it is too late.
Rational Libertarian (ai/nke) retweeted
…it should also be understood that research mathematicians have broadly been successful at a sleight-of-hand in which they are funded by the public to do mostly useless math and justify it based on a handful of research avenues that that had unexpected real-world applications.
Rational Libertarian (ai/nke) retweeted
I think it’s fine to say companies act in their self-interest but averting human extinction is very much in the financial self-interest of the companies we’re talking about so you do have to address the object-level debate.
