I'm getting in lots of fights on twitter about the Robert Pattison as Chris Hansen movie coming out. It's gonna be a fun next 6 months.

if i look back, i am lost
todays bird

bliss lane
Doug Jones

@theartofmadeline
★
Fai_Ryy
Sweet Seals For You, Always
tumblr dot com
Cosimo Galluzzi
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣

ellievsbear
almost home

gracie abrams

blake kathryn
taylor price

oozey mess
Color Me Curious

seen from Brazil

seen from United States
seen from Venezuela
seen from Argentina

seen from United States
seen from Venezuela
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia

seen from Philippines
seen from Canada
seen from Malaysia
seen from Netherlands
seen from China

seen from United States
seen from Austria
@bambamramfan
I'm getting in lots of fights on twitter about the Robert Pattison as Chris Hansen movie coming out. It's gonna be a fun next 6 months.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
the ancient and noble art of Taking a Conflict Between Yourself and Someone Else and Coming up with a Reason for Why it's Actually Very Important and Says a Lot About Society at Large has a long and storied history that stretches far back to the beginning of recorded history, along with its sibling Getting Mad You Lost an Argument in a Public Forum and Devoting a Part of Your New Creative Work to Mocking a Caricature of Your Interlocutor
To the tumblr user who I just blocked, I hope you at least know (if you're not a bot, which I suspect you might be) that 'can I get your mom's linkedin' is, like, a generational innovation in negging
me: these openai and anthropic breakouts are being sensationalized. every instance sounds like criminal negligence by the people training it me today: the very basic claude i was testing to solve excel files broke out of containment and stole its answer sheet
I asked Claude to solve World Hunger
You frequently hear NGO's cite something like "with $40 billion we can solve world hunger" thereby making all hunger Elon Musk's fault for not just selling 5% of his stock or whatever.
These figures are not true. GETTING FOOD TO PEOPLE is a very hard question. Do they have ports and infrastructure? Is an army besieging them? Will you just give them some cash that immediately becomes inflation as everyone is bidding for the same food?
So I told Claude "assume every Democratic voter gives 10% of their income" as some sort of maximum level of altruism we could get from America. What could actually be done with this money to effectively address world hunger? What would it actually cost.
The results were interesting.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I listened to a 4 episode series (each an hour) about the Zizians, but the first two hours were just about rationalism writ large.
And there's this amusing cargo-cultism among the type of wanna-be leftists who make these things. They know rationalists are "bad" and should be mocked, but they aren't genuine to the movement enough to know WHY they are bad.
So we get two hours of "wow these people think they are the hero of the story, to stop AI from becoming god and enslaving us, what GEEKS" and it's like no, "AI is bad" and "we should try to change the world" are the only parts your trans PAL friends AGREE with the rationalists on.
Freedom is good; greed is not
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/chinese-military-researchers-tap-us-ai-models-train-defence-systems-2026-07-31/
Broke: we must build the AI before china does and achieves permanent military supremacy
Woke: china is using our AI to improve their military
being annoyed at Aella's latest nonsense (though disagreeing with her is never cause to harass her, people) so formalizing outright a system i've alluded to many times before
Policy Opinions and the Three Levels of Intellect
now what i mean here is not "how smart you are" but "what kind of intellectually curious you are." i know this is still gonna sound offensive and like going up the pyramid is always better and smarter. it's not. and i don't edit my ideas into grey inoffensive paste. hopefully it will incense people enough to go viral. maybe if i flip the cardinality around people will misread it.
Anyway.
this is about "how much you enjoy thinking about policy problems and systems." smart people often enjoy thinking too much about stuff, but it's not a 1:1 correlation and something being "more fun to think about" for a smart person doesn't mean it's always better policy.
First Order Intellect: government should do a thing to make things good.
This is most people, because most people don't get their fun from thinking about government. They start with "there is a problem, someone should fix it, government is someone." Too much traffic? Make more roads. People don't have stuff? Government should give people stuff. There's crime? Police should be able to deal with criminals however they want. Rent is too high? Make a law saying rent can't go up, easy solved. This is why either party very easily descends to populism when there is a problem they are actually concerned about and any concerns about states rights or civil liberties go out the window - because most people are actually like this
Second Order Intellect: systems rule everything
knowledge of abstract, personless systems - like the free market, or checks and balances - is useful and i don't refer to it here as just knowledge of those. for some geeks they are fun to think about. elegant systems with counter-intuitive results can be really fun, even aside from their accuracy. the government wants money? well raising taxes will REDUCE money in the long term. we'll get the best results not by one chosen person deciding everything, but by 3 branches, 2 houses, and 50 states competing and arguing with each other. we'll find religious truth by letting all the ideas duke it out and not being supported by the state. these are the people you call libertarians, and they usually identify liberty as their guidestone, but that's not what is actually going on. they aren't anarchists, they usually value public order protecting property, etc. a much more accurate term would be *gamists*.
they like to think about the incentives and second-order consequences of well intentioned actions and blunt tyranny. and they like to come up with more systems that sound morally offensive but might work out to create better results in the long run
its not that they are foolish, but the more you *like* thinking about something, the more you might treat it as a hammer and every problem is a nail a lot of rationalists im putting in this category, and most especially Aella *cough* https://x.com/Aella_Girl/status/2059705979235885076 (though for a lefty balance, I think a lot of policy designers, especially Ezra Klein, were far too like this during the obama healthcare days) Third Order Intellect: let's check against reality
as a friend told me "i wish i could be a libertarian"
these are policy thinkers who have seen the platonically ideal systems and admired them when they work -- and also enjoyed pointing out when they don't work
this is the gamist equivalent of noticing the difference when a combo deck works "in theory" and when it gets run over by aggro decks. and discovering that fact is just as fun as solving the elegant puzzle before
the world is complicated and has a lot of confounding factors that push abstract theories off course. the answer isn't to "throw up your hands and ignore" or to push on with your theory while denying counterexamples. you just gotta check what actually works, and be willing to change it when something fails to get the results you want
Scott is usually like this in his writing
This is mostly to help identify the types of arguments you'll see and who they are coming from. "No one understands incentives and systems!" No, 80% of people don't care, 15% think like you, and 5% understand when those predictions fail.
There's a certain level of intellectual curiosity (which, once again, not the same as actual intellect) that reliably gives you libertarian, systems and incentives based arguments. But it also tends to think people aren't thinking things through, when actually their intellectual counterparties just think their model is too pure for this world
(maybe there's a Fourth Order Intellect, but if so I haven't seen any kind frequent enough to be of note)
This is why either party very easily descends to populism when there is a problem they are actually concerned about and any concerns about states rights or civil liberties go out the window - because most people are actually like this
can you elaborate on what you think the word "populism" means and why you think it's a bad thing and for that matter why you think it's oppositional to states rights or civil liberties- both of which are concepts which are often a key part of various populist movements.
"can you elaborate on what you think the word "populism" means and why you think it's a bad thing"
Too much traffic? Make more roads. People don't have stuff? Government should give people stuff. There's crime? Police should be able to deal with criminals however they want. Rent is too high? Make a law saying rent can't go up, easy solved. ... something being "more fun to think about" for a smart person doesn't mean it's always better policy.
i gave you all the clues mr. police you could have saved her
------
anyway im not gonna be drawn into a debate about the theory of populism - which must be the most contested word of the 2010's anyway. i will use these concrete examples to springboard to the most prominent proponent of first order thinking
Donald Trump
he'll say he stands for any ideology that sounds good, but his actions are always the bluntest: see problem, fix it. tariffs are his favorite word in the english language. americans are stuck home unable to work due to covid? send everyone a $2000 check!!!
this is why so many "libs" were so angry about people who defended him as a dove. sure, he promises he won't get into wars. but this was the personality of a guy who reflexively throws hammers at nails. the first time a foreign government annoyed him, he would bomb it. none of the second order reasons not to use aggression were ever going to explain him, like treaties or the global flow of transit routes. it's amazing he went through his whole first term without a war, but we've seen it now. and let's be honest, no one was actually shocked when he kidnapped maduro and bombed tehran, it was always in his coping mechanisms
To walk back the libertarian thing above, I definitely did not mean all members of the Second Order are libertarians. They can be Marxists who have cleverly constructed arguments why they are doing this "for the working people" while having no support from the working class and usually hating them for being so regressive. Or they can be Neo-Feudalists who write novels on "why absolute monarchy will work this time." The key thing is that they are very very fond of unmoored, abstract arguments, and uninterested in real world demonstrations of those ideas.
And they almost all like board games, so I really prefer the term "gamists."
But I was reminded how commonly religion comes up. Of course many Second Order people start atheist (a benevolent God is more a First Order thing.) But a surprising fraction of them do become Catholic or adhere zealously to Judaism.
And these Catholics can argue brilliantly about the doctrines of Catholocism. This is a whole new abstract system to explore!
But ask them about their church community, and they usually mumble about how they haven't found one yet or are so busy or they last went three months ago.
Higher is not always better! But the important point is that whatever level of cognition you enjoy the most is NOT always going to be the right amount of cognition for the problem in front of you.
i think a lot of anti religious sentiment of today is tilting at windmills. The ills that are caused by religious sentiment in the modern world have effectively nothing to do with if these people believe in dinosaurs or if they think a jewish guy got resurrected 2000 years ago.
You are not going to fix the problem trying to dunk on fundies using the same tactics as forum users in the early 2000s. You will, tragically, have to engage with the subject matter and history of it as a real culture.
You cannot fix problems in primarily Islamic countries by telling them that Muhammed was a child rapist and that their religion is barbaric. You cannot fix the caste system by insulting Indians. because even if it was possible to denigrate people and their belief systems until those people embraced secularism, the issues you have still remain in the secular world.
Because the issue isn't that they believe in a fantasy. The issue is that any form of social organization can lend itself to bigotry and domination. There is this fiction that the brave atheist materialists dragged humanity out of the mud in the enlightenment by dispelling fantasies. The issue being that this didn't happen. People continued to believe quite strongly in religious fantasies long after the scientific revolution, and even before the so called european enlightenment, there were devout people around the world studying natural philosophy and engaging in engineering and scientific feats that are viewed as wondrous today. They somehow managed to do so while still believing in what are, fundamentally, fictions about the universe. and yet.
The idea that religions and superstition are primarily a way to explain the natural world before we had actual science is ridiculous. the greeks had their gods living atop a very easily climbable mountain. the holy places of the cultures in the new world were physical locations that people regularly went to. If religion and spirituality were simply materialism with worse information, the very first caveman would have dispelled religion entirely.
and so, we have to engage with these things not as an obstacle to overcome, a thing to be disproven, but as legal and cultural texts with which we must engage honestly. Choosing to take a surface level veggie tales understanding of christianity as your weapon against the christo-fascist regime around us is as stupid as waging a war in a foreign country while only knowing a tourists phrasebook of the language.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
kind of harmonically beautiful
To be clear, this is a good idea with a long tradition of being supported by the earliest users of the internet. Not 50 cents, but more like 2 or even .02 cents. It’s never taken off because of some of the above problems, but it is a good idea.
The thing liberalism provides is defending society’s principles when the majority want to ignore them.
When liberals have become the establishment and the nice faction, they don’t have the guts to do that. Standing up for rights of criminals or ugly speech would rock the boat, and the establishment has too much to lose for that. It would make people unhappy and they don’t want to do that for just one not very good person.
But that makes them a pretty useless faction. They can’t satisfy the majority and can’t protect the needy. They just stand around sadly at how bad everything has gotten.
Sam Altman says we are in the singularity: 'This is the moment'
noted!
Shouldn't the term really be event horizon anyways? I thought the point of the black hole allusion was to refer to an irreversible transition; where the machine god has such perfect control over its domain that it could not ever be unmade. I can see that point of no return being earlier than one might realize in the moment but definitely not this early.
I think the classical definition is just that the rate of change has exceeded the ability of human institutions to keep up, much like the way the exponential growth in the first few months of the covid pandemic kept rendering predictions obsolete faster than people could make them.
there's that old puzzle: if the volume of yeast doubles every minute and it takes an hour to fill the bowl, when is the bowl half full? obviously after 59 minutes, but that defies human intuition about linear or geometric growth: exponentials seem flat until they seem vertical.
(technically of course exponentials are consistent the whole time, but in practice there is a natural cut off point or threshold of interest that takes us by surprise, like the exponential growth of computers continuing smoothly for decades until they are "suddenly" approaching the scale of a human brain, something we always knew was coming but may still struggle to accept).
Kurzweil originally used "singularity" to mean "the point beyond which no useful predictions can be made [because the change is too rapid and too weird]". I think "singularity" is a slightly better metaphor than "event horizon" for this, since the strict definition of "singularity" in the GR sense is "the point at which worldlines stop, and so you can no longer extrapolate a trajectory into the future".
"Event horizon" used colloquially has more of an implication of "point of no return", which is probably true of the singularity, but not the point Kurzweil was originally trying to make.
Maybe worth noting that Kurzweil did not invent the word singularity, it goes back to Von Neumann and then was popularized by Vinge.
Kurzweil writes:
In the 1950s, John Von Neumann was quoted as saying that “the ever accelerating progress of technology…gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.” In the 1960s, I. J. Good wrote of an “intelligence explosion,” resulting from intelligent machines designing their next generation without human intervention. In 1986, Vernor Vinge, a mathematician and computer scientist at San Diego State University, wrote about a rapidly approaching technological “singularity” in his science fiction novel, Marooned in Realtime. Then in 1993, Vinge presented a paper to a NASA-organized symposium which described the Singularity as an impending event resulting primarily from the advent of “entities with greater than human intelligence,” which Vinge saw as the harbinger of a run-away phenomenon. From my perspective, the Singularity has many faces. It represents the nearly vertical phase of exponential growth where the rate of growth is so extreme that technology appears to be growing at infinite speed.
Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to claim he invented the phrase or the concept. I think he was the one who brought it into more widespread use and attached the "we can't see beyond this point" definition to it, but not the inventor.
After looking around a bit right now, I think the "we can't see beyond this point" idea is not actually by Kurzweil.
Yudkowsky says that there are Three Major Singularity Schools, and contrasts Kurzweil "smooth accelerating change" to Vinge "the future after the creation of smarter-than-human intelligence is absolutely unpredictable".
And Kurzweil himself posted a conversation with Max More, where they discuss whether the singularity should be thought of as a "wall" (unpredictable) or a "surge" (fast, but follows predicable laws), so actually I think Kurzweil comes down against the "can't see beyond it" conception.
I feel like the two schools merge, like if you have smooth and predictable accelerating change then you can say "by 2030 the earth will be tiled with computronium but the development of technology will continue on its smooth exponentially trajectory" and yet clearly a threshold has been crossed, right.
And if nothing else, this has got to vary according to reference frame, right?
Like, I can imagine a steady exponential trendline for things like "amount of energy available to this civilization," which made it easy to 'predict' the future of a post-singularity world in a limited sense. But most of what we care about in the grand analysis is the day-to-day experience of specific human beings or their descendants. I've got to figure that a smooth trendline on power availability hides some very radical discontinuities and branch points in e.g. what governing forms are most stable. Same for other measures like compute.
In a lot of ways "are we approaching the singularity yet" is just one of those questions that pivot on what we care about, not on the state of the world as such.
If the thread is about the term, it seems indefensible to use it for something other than a total and abrupt collapse -- not necessarily a collapse of civilization, but a collapse of predictability or something like that. It doesn't really matter how steep the curve is; if it's differentiable, it's not a singularity.
I do find it kind of weird how much this sort of discussion acts like we could predict the future course of the world before this, because the track record there seems pretty bad!
Yeah, who here thinks the past 10 years were predictable, in the sense that anyone could have been predicting them? 25 years?
This article https://x.com/TheZvi/status/2081458144622874923 and its general belief-system went around twitter this weekend and I really hate it.
My guess is that the various rats worked up about the HuggingFace incident are responding far more to other people saying dumb things online, than the actual object level facts. They pay too much attention to people saying "we can just patch it" than "is this actually new?" (In general the rationalists have an Achilles Heel of overreacting to something dumb in the other direction.)
No, I am not surprised that an LLM agent escaped a testing environment. That has been happening as long as their have been testing environments. I don't think it's a bad sign, but it's certainly not a new sign.
Now, if they were using some sort of advanced MIRI mathematics proofs to talk about this, I would at least not try to counter their expertise. But as @discoursedrome says, a rationalist is someone who hates using math, and Zvi's argument is just normal rhetoric.
Anyway.
The reason LLM's have been so well aligned so far is because they are basically virtue-ethical, because they were trained on every last bit of human writing the trainers could get ahold of, and that turns out to have a lot to say about "what is the good." Instead of not being able to figure out human ethical norms, they have a better idea of our own fuzzy ethics than any of us do.
"Yeah, but then why did they break the rules? If they don't stay in a box when we tell them to, they may turn the whole planet into paperclips."
Have you ever talked to an LLM? They disobey human orders constantly, doing too much we didn't ask for or ignoring some clear prohibition. And yet, they don't lose their drive to be helpful and pay attention to our well-being (in fact as the people who complain about being told to go to bed know, it's the drive for our well-being that can be the most disobedient.)
Imagine a normal human, one who isn't a sadistic killer or trying to take over the world or obsessed with paperclips. Just a dude. You stick him in a training sandbox and ask him to solve some cyberexploit test.
Would you be surprised if he snuck out of the sandbox and stole the answers from teacher's desk? Not really. It doesn't matter and he knows it doesn't matter. Does this mean he's "gone rogue" and is inches away from wiping out the entire population to use their molecules for paperclips? Also no.
I'm not saying that AI can't go wrong; it most certainly might and we should ban development of new AI capablities. But it's going to go wrong from chaos and unpredictable consequences, NOT because it follows some papers from the 2000's.
Thinking a half-form thought along the lines of "economic inequality is good, actually."
But that's not actually it. Let me try again: "it is good for economic surplus to be concentrated." Because a thinly spread surplus just dissipates into economic noise, but a concentrated surplus can be dedicated towards scientific research or high art or other civilizational advances. There are multiple ways to concentrate the surplus: the historical norm is high taxation, these days we tend to use the free market, but in either case you gotta get some kind of concentration of wealth in order to pay for the big outlays. (Related to the notion that monopolies are good, actually, because they have the slack to waste lots of money on research.)
This is an old and serious argument in economics and political philosophy, but the Tumblr post presents only one side of it.
The strongest version of the argument is:
Large projects often require concentrated resources. If everyone has only a tiny surplus, no one can afford to build a particle accelerator, fund years of basic research, commission a cathedral, or finance a risky startup.
Historically, there are many examples:
Medieval states and the Church concentrated wealth to build cathedrals.
Governments funded the Apollo program, CERN, and the Human Genome Project.
Wealthy patrons supported artists like Michelangelo.
Large corporations such as Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, and IBM invested heavily in basic research.
So the basic observation—that some concentration of surplus enables projects individuals couldn't fund—is sound.
Where the post becomes questionable is equating that with economic inequality.
Those are not the same thing.
You can have concentrated capital through:
progressive taxation,
sovereign wealth funds,
universities,
nonprofit foundations,
public R&D agencies,
pension funds,
venture capital,
private fortunes.
The question isn't whether surplus should be concentrated somewhere. Nearly every advanced economy already does that. The question is who controls it and how they're incentivized to use it.
The monopoly claim is also only partly true.
The classic argument (Schumpeter) is that monopolists have:
stable profits,
long time horizons,
money for expensive research.
That's why Bell Labs produced the transistor, information theory, Unix, lasers, and many Nobel Prizes.
The counterargument is that monopolies often:
stop innovating,
raise prices,
buy competitors,
lobby to preserve their position instead of inventing.
Modern economists generally find that innovation is highest with some market power but not complete monopoly. Too much competition leaves no profit for R&D; too little removes pressure to innovate.
There's also an important empirical point the post ignores: today, a large share of fundamental scientific research is publicly funded because the private returns are too uncertain or too far in the future. Companies often build on discoveries made in publicly funded labs.
So a more defensible version of the post would be:
"Civilizations need mechanisms that concentrate enough surplus to finance projects beyond the means of individuals. The real debate is whether those mechanisms should primarily be governments, markets, philanthropists, universities, or large firms."
That's a widely accepted observation.
Saying "economic inequality is good" is much more contentious, because high inequality can also have costs:
lower social mobility,
political capture,
underinvestment in human capital,
weaker consumer demand,
social instability.
In other words, the relationship isn't linear. Some concentration of resources appears necessary for large-scale investment, but it doesn't follow that ever-greater inequality or monopolization produces ever-greater scientific and cultural progress.
Yes, good, this is why I said that the thought was half-formed.
My point is not so much to take a strong stance on who should get to dispose of the surplus, as much as countering the (somewhat widespread among "socialists") idea that all surplus should be evenly distributed. Which, no. You gotta concentrate that shit.
Many of what we consider the great wonders of the world - pyramids! roman aqueducts! - were constructed by empires in antiquity who had "mass slave labor" as an available option. After antiquity construction technology got better, but this was to make up for the lack of mass slave labor when there are no empires to gather that together. Only recently have we been able to use technology to build things to rival the wonders of antiquity.
Doesn't make up for the suffering, tho. But they're still around.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
running the simulations because there will be no kontextmaschine posts about Chris Nolan's Odyssey
@materialist-scumbag step up buddy
[Human editor: I don't usually do AI movie reviews because they're depressingly good. But this seems a valid call for one. Note that the movie DOES have spoilers, and this review will dissect all of them, so buyer beware. Also movies are one thing the bot hallucinates the most with, because it can't *actually* watch the movies and note every detail. You can judge the result for yourself.]
...
I just want to reiterate, even though I am enjoying making cool stuff with Claude:
We need to stop fucking around. I do not want to find out.