aqouta
No bio...
Friends:
User ID: 75
aqouta
1mo ago
The point with the pipes is that obviously hamas is trying to make rockets and bombs using any material they can get their hands on. We're in agreement that they've dug up water pipes and made rockets out of them.This is the justification for blockading and inspecting things thing into Gaza.
It’s not unhinged to know, as a fact, the facts of the day: that many houses were destroyed by tanks, that a survivor testified to tanks firing at their house and killing their family, that many cars were destroyed which were on their way into Gaza, that there were instances of friendly fire. It’s unhinged to have any opinion on the conflict without knowing this, unhinged to hide from it because you find it uncomfortable to acknowledge.
Your claim is that you wouldn't be surprised if only military aged men were killed by Hamas. We have videos of the indiscriminate killing. Not that killing military aged festival goers is somehow justified. You're out of your mind here.
And while it’s not unhinged to distrust “footage” that came out weeks after the attack, I find it inadvisable, because every developed nation has the ability to fabricate footage
You're trusting hearsay about tanks but not video footage? For real? There is plenty of testimony of indiscriminate killing as well, do you trust that testimony or only the rumors spread by pro hamas accounts?
aqouta
1mo ago
This was debunked, I’m pretty sure.
There's video of it happening and hamas claims it happens. The only thing really up for debate is if they use specifically EU funded pipes.
But more to the broader point you understand they still regularly lobbed rockets at Israel right? You can't just let your neighbor that's doing that get easy access to more serious weapons.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/10/eu-funded-water-pipelines-hamas-rockets/
Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if every non military age male was killed in the Hannibal Directive rather than by Hamas. Because I don’t think Hamas went in with the RPGs required to
Are you under the impression that most Israelis on October 7th died in cars on the way back to gaza? This is a totally unhinged thing to believe. There is footage, you can watch it. Should go without saying but very NSFW https://www.hamas-massacre.net/
I think so, yes
I genuinely don't understand how you could convince yourself of this. Hamas leadership had been very consistent in denying this.
You can stop blockading the Gaza Strip What do you mean by
blockading? Do you mean controlling what goes in to the territory where the governimg body uses the pipes meant for water supplies to make rockets? Yeah, no country is going to allow supplies in unexamined in that situation.
stealing land in the West Bank and illegally imprisoning
I agree, the settlements should not happen, but the Palestinians should have by now come up with state borders which would have prevented this rather than clinging to the delusion that they're going to retake Israel. We should have two people negotiate proper borders but the Palestinians are uninterested in this.
You can not use the Hannibal Directive, which killed some unspecified % of the hostages and civilians (it’s crazy we still don’t know the extent of this)
What percentage of the deaths on October 7th do you think died to Hannibal directive? The policy rescinded in 2016.
You can implement the most asinine security measures to prevent any future attack, starting with a common sense “don’t throw raves right next to Gaza”
Do you attribute any agency at all to Gazans? Are they just animals incapable of higher reasoning in your estimation? They can't be expected to differentiate right from wrong?
You can pursue diplomacy based on returning encroached land in the West Bank
Would hamas accept a two state solution on these borders?
aqouta
1mo ago
Falluja was fought against insurgents in Iraq. While 60% or more of the buildings in Gaza are destroyed, after this battle (the worst of the urban combat in Iraq) only 20% max were destroyed.
The battle of falluja was less than 2 months long and there weren't extensive tunnel networks dug out specifically to prevent the forces from being effectively routed. This is the type of war Hamas specifically prepared to fight and provoke. You need to deal with there being two agentic sides to this conflict.
even the comically worst enemy of history weren’t despised with genocidal intent as Israelis despise Palestinians.
This has a lot to do with holocaust justification for the war being post hoc and Americans just not really caring a much about a conflict half the world away as evidenced by the long resistance to entering it.
They launched an attack on American soil that killed twice the number as Oct 7. We went after Al Qaeda and Baathists as a result. We didn’t aim to starve them to death. This is the closest thing to a 1-to-1 comparison.
Afghanistan just isn't in any way comparable to Gaza.
This is unfalsifiable.
A call for an alternative strategy is definitely falsifiable although it's a weird term to use. The relevant question is what do you actually do if you're Israel and recognize that your neighbor is lead by a death cult that legitimately will go to whatever ends are within their ability to kill as many of your people as possible and have extensive tunnel networks that make actually rooting them out nearly impossible. Your options are basically extreme violence, as we see now, or just enduring regular attacks.
aqouta
1mo ago
I would think it would prove more salutary, they have air, sea and ground superiority and countermeasures against massed barely armed troops not present in the past. Of course a smaller version of the Palestinian strategy of being killed so hard and publicly that western people stop out of pity may work on Israel itself but I just can't see how Israel loses this one. Of course once that's on the table a lot of other actors might change their tune.
aqouta
1mo ago
Indeed, even today there are people who seek hormone therapy without shooting for a binary transition - starting with various non-binary/genderfluid types. I know many vaguely nonbinary transmasculines who are happy going by "he" or "they" but don't break off in hives at being "she"-ed. (As a matter of fact, Ozy is one.) Those people would still seek breast reduction and testosterone injections even in a world where there was no concept of social transition and they remained classified as women, which they'd be basically fine with so long as they got to be very butch women.
I'll note because others haven't that I don't know if I'm a conservative even if I often side with them on the trans question but I basically can get behind the "I just like it and it" justification for adult transition. It's the reality claims that I can't square with my other observations like the existence of some kind of gendered soul that make me get off the train. I do believe what follows from this formulation is no child transition, gendered sports and a fat maybe on trans people in women's restrooms depending on a lot of negotiated factors.
If America gets to "let's stay out of it" Israel is doomed.
I don't think this is actually the case. If America wasn't involved and Israel didn't care about appeasing western sensibilities at all they'd just behave like the other powers in the region and genocide their troublesome minorities.
aqouta
1mo ago
The destiny's crucible series by Olan Thorensen is like this. The writing is not amazing but if you don't care too much about that it scratches that kind of itch.
aqouta
1mo ago
Or he could just walk next to the person in the basket for as long as needed.
Possible murderer was getting onto a boat.
aqouta
1mo ago
We're going to have to have a special "I did my Asia trip writeup" badge at some point. Great write up, really enjoyed it.
aqouta
2mo ago
I'm retired, full-time research, theory, and writing since 2009, formerly 50/50 residential construction and corporate I.T.
While working in corporate IT when you have a basically working system if someone came up and informs you that the silicon in all the electronics you use is susceptible to solar radiation that can occasionally make calculation incorrect and that you should consider alternatives to silicon what would you do? Maybe if you had the time to kill you could kick around the idea with them, the fellow may even be right about the silicon being susceptible to solar radiation, you vaguely remember that something like that can occasionally cause a bit to flip here or there. But really, how seriously are you going to take this warning? It's not really been a big problem before, you even had some redundancies set up so even if in a freak accident it mattered it'd probably be fine. There are some experimental alternatives to silicon materials, Germanium, Graphene, cubic Boron but it's not even clear if any of them solve the original problem and you manage tons of electronics. You realistically cannot even source a single Germanium chip, let alone replace your servers. You express skepticism and they accuse you of being negligent. That's kind of what it feels like to see you morally load this conversation by call capitalism psychopathy with a makeover. It just kind of comes off as silly and frivolous. Maybe there is an alternative and maybe we can talk about those alternatives but I live in downtown Chicago, I'm looking around at these sky scrapers and millions of people moving about keeping everything running and it may actually be easier to switch every electronic in the city to graphene then get this working without ownership as we know it.
I'm happy to talk about this, but don't call my a psychopath for being skeptical.
How can you understand an alternative if you bat the spoon away when someone says, "Here, just taste it" ??
We've been offered many spoons, some we have later verified were filled with dog shit.
That's the codependence talking. The ball is ALWAYS in your court unless you've given up your game to play someone else's. Let's just say it turns out I'm onto something here, and within the next ten years it will become common knowledge. Tomorrow I'm going to bike into town to food shop. Let's say I get hit and killed by a car, and you never hear from me again. Where is the "ball" then?
I think you're mistaken of the dynamics here. There are tons of courts. If discussing this with you is tedious I can go up or down a thread and participate in the forum's 800th discussion on whether Trump is good or bad, the 480th thread on whether lgbtq2s+ acceptance has not gone too far enough or even spicy new topics like the India/Pakistan conflict. This topic is of special interest to you because it's been a brain worm for you for years, it's of special interest to us because we do actually appreciate the opportunity to engage with new views. If the engagement is not forthcoming, if the ball stays in your court we can and will move on. As we were counting assumptions earlier the belief that your perspective will win out is is an assumption you're making and it's on you to convince us of that.
Societies have collapsed, of course, but give me just one example, just one, that collapsed as the result of a failed experiment in radical change.
Depends what your standard is for collapse. I'd argue maoist china collapsed in a way. The Weimar republic probably counts. The soviet union might count. Usually a society is able to survive and change course after the implementation of bad ideas, see Trump tariffs.
As far as Black, I promote him in the interest of expanding minds, not endorsing his views/"solutions". I don't think he has any solutions. He's an anarchist, we've corresponded, I've tried to engage him, but he demurs. That's basically when I realized I've gone far beyond anarchism.
I don't know if you've gone beyond anarchism, but I don't know much about your views.
Moore's law was originally a doubling every two years and has basically kept pace, although it may have slowed now to every 3 years in just the last few years. If the speed of ai progress continues at this trend for half a century and then merely 2/3rds this speed then we're hitting agi for sure.
I can't find this analog SF graph you're talking about and don't see how it's related to this prediction. We knew about brute facts of physics that would prevent ftl travel back then and know of no fact of physics thst would stop ai from gaining human level general intelligence. You think we're at the looking at cars and predicting ftl level when we seem much more at the looking at horses and predicting cars given knowledge of engines. Was it possible that engines were just too heavy and a functional car wasn't really possible? I sure, could have happened. And horses still outclass cars in maneuvering in some cases. But we did get the car, and they do dominate horses in most ways.
aqouta
2mo ago
We had that one anti-work guy around a long while back, any chance they're related? I don't remember much about that guy really but the philosophy seems similar.
aqouta
2mo ago
You write like you're an AI bull, but your actual case seems bearish (at least compared to the AI 2027 or the Situational Awareness crowd).
I was responding to a particularly bearish comment and didn't need to prove anything so speculative. If someone thinks current level ai is cool but useless I don't need to prove that it's going to hit agi in 2027 to show that they don't have an accurate view of things.
I think this is true too, in a decade. The white-collar job market will look quite different and the way we interact with software will be meaningfully different, but like the internet and the smartphone I think the world will still look recognizably similar. I don't think we'll be sipping cocktails on our own personal planet or all dead from unaligned super intelligence any time soon.
well yes, that world is predicated on what I think is a very unlikely complete halt in progress.
aqouta
2mo ago
It's sensitive to context and prompting. When having it write bash scripts have you consider just dumping the man files into the context? Don't bother actually formatting them, just dump anything that could possibly be relevant into the prompt.
aqouta
2mo ago
There wasn't ever a mechanism by which cars would start improving themselves recursively if they were able to break 100 mph. There were very good laws of physics reason in the 60s to assume we couldn't even in theory get to FTL. No such reasons exist today. You're not fighting the prediction that cars will be able to go ftl, you're fighting the prediction that mag lev trains would ever be built.
aqouta
2mo ago
Ok, taking all this in good faith then I think the only real shot at overcoming deprivation is by pushing forward. Continue expanding productivity through capital investment. Make more and more things too cheap to meter. Ownership isn't the source of deprivation really, only the shape it takes, it's scarcity that would need to be defeated. In practice, at least in the west, we've basically defeated scarcity on things like foodstuffs. Our poor suffer from obesity and not really hunger. Our poor mostly don't lack for running water, clothes on their backs, even shelter for most of them although I do have particular changes I'd like to see on this subject.
The chronic homeless wither not because society is unable to house them but because our sense of individual freedom won't allow us to commit those that can't function without aid. This example muddies the issue. The deprivation here might appear to be proximately caused by ownership of homes, trivially if homeless people could just go in and occupy anyone's home then they would be cured of their homelessness but this wouldn't really solve the underlying issue. I don't know how you could prevent self imposed deprivation, or at least how you could do so without forfeiting freedom.
Cool! Then notice that an ability is not a right, and let's keep them straight. I'm talking about a preemptive principled right to universally deprive. I can deprive every single person in the whole world of a $100 dollar bill by burning it to ash. Totally my right as an owner (ignoring the complication that money is not something we "own" strictly speaking) but impossible if I ain't got no matches. Right vs. ability.
Alright, then I revise what I said to "My conclusion is that the right to deprive is probably necessary for any social system that scales past around the Dunbar number and depending on how you operationalize "deprive" maybe far below that number."
Is this the world you want your loved ones and great- and great-great offspring to live in? Is this or something resembling it as good as you want it to get? My answers to those are resounding NO FUCKING WAY! Settling for better-than-worse to avoid the possibility that you might break something by attempting good-as-we-want has never made sense to me.
I do want things to improve. I observe the history of society and see that as we build out new technology and capital infrastructure we increase abundance and things get better. I would like to separate the concept of "things being better" into things made better systemically and things made better by material progress. We don't need to change the system for things to be made better by material progress. It's genuinely incredible how much better things have been made by material progress. I don't have to worry about infections. I can spend a Wednesday evening relaxing in a comfortable chair listening to tunes on high quality wireless headphones eating good food in a large air conditioned house responding to people on the internet. I am the envy of kings of old. I'm more skeptical about things being made by, radical, systemic changes.
Still I would like things to improve. I'm never sure if I should call myself a liberal or a conservative. I'm freedom loving and optimistic. I think if we mostly leave people alone and minimally adjust the system things will simply get better over time. So I oppose rash and under thought out changes to the system. You could say I conserve the system. I'm not opposed to all change, in fact I fiercely support some changes and updates as the material conditions change. But I find radicalism off putting, ungrateful, pessimistic and short sighted. You're not only risking what good we have, you're risking the good that the current system will produce if we only allow it to. You may see ownership as a rotten board of a rotting house, but I see it as a vital component of a prosperous and growing society. So from my perspective it really is on you to explain why and how we should get rid of it or I'm going to default to declining. If that's conservative then I am a conservative. If it's madness then I am mad.
It's been known since the 80s that the worst thing you can do in a brainstorming session is criticize the ideas that arise instead of accepting and exploring them. (de Bono's Serious Creativity is great on this point.)
I'll note that this is the culture war thread, we're here to discuss the culture war. The default valiance anyone will approach any underspecified idea with is that there are culture war/political implications to what you propose. I know you directly said in the OP that you were looking to brainstorm and it can be exhausting to have to overly signal that you're not advancing any particular objective but your OP would have been much better received if you had put some effort into making it clear that you didn't have an axe to grind.
aqouta
2mo ago
Have you actually used the latest tooling? What tasks have you actually had it try? This seems incredibly unlikely to me.
aqouta
2mo ago
If there were lots of natural creatures casually traveling around at light speed through mere evolution those predictions would have been much better founded. It seems like quite the unfounded prediction to have witnessed LLMs rapidly surpass all predictions with the pace not appearing to slow down at all and assume it's going to stop right now. Which kind of must be your assumption if you think we aren't going to hit agi. It rather seems like you're declaring those automobiles will never compete with horses because of how clunky they are. We're at the horse vs car stage where cares aren't quite as maneuverable or fast as horses and maybe will just be a fad.
aqouta
2mo ago
Sounds like this should be easy then as we have seen some people who are smarter than others.
aqouta
2mo ago
Speaking of work, what is/was your line of work? It may just be an engineers mindset but when I hear a critique of some fundamental part or tool I'm using I have two concerns.
- is this critique true
- if it is true what is the alternative and is it better than the downside being put forward.
Part 2 is pretty important because if no alternative is actually better than the tool itself then it makes step 1 pointless. If there is not an actual alternative to ownership then why should I care about your critique of it? It's like putting forward a critique of how much trouble it causes that humans must excrete waste. You can say tons of bad things about our need to excrete waste, it smells, we must do it at inopportune times and it's processing requires much effort. But as this practice cannot be eliminated we must make peace with it and the infrastructure and sewers must be built, damn the cost.
Ownership means people must be deprived of some things. It's not alone in that downside. The need to breathe oxygen and inability to survive at extreme levels of pressure deprive every human of a safe tour of the Titanic wreckage. As humans being deprived of things is just something we have to accept unless we can find a better alternative. We will probably never overcome deprivation on our ability to walk on the surface of the sun, whatever one might call the surface of a giant nuclear explosion.
I think a lot of the frustration you're seeing in response here is that the ball seems to be in your court on this topic but you refuse to acknowledge that and instead insist that the ball is in our court. You're proposing some pretty radical interpretations of society and then refusing to elaborate in anything but vagueness.
That you and I mean the same thing by "ownership".
I'm perfectly willing to accept your definition of ownership for sake of conversation. It's just a word. If we come to somewhere I don't think you're using it in a consistent way or trying to garner strength from a connotation ownership has that isn't present in your definition I'll let it be known that we differ.
That in a world where ownership has been abolished, there will still be factories and factory workers.
Sure, this is a pretty important thing. If you're proposing we collapse all of society and return to monkey or whatever I'd like to say straight up that I have no interest in giving up modern conveniences. I think society as a whole is pretty great and produces many wonders. If this is what you are proposing it would save us all a lot of time if you came out and said it. Then you could defend that position and maybe say something interesting. But it's pretty unsatisfying to have to guess at what you're even talking about.
You're welcome to list the assumptions I'm making.
I would greatly prefer you to list these. That I don't actually know what assumptions you're making is the problem here. You seem to think it's some kind of virtue that you're minimally engaging. It's not. It makes discussion practically impossible. The totality of what I know about your position is that you believe ownership to be unjust and that now that you also think work is bad.
You should read Bob Black's awesome little book, The Abolition of Work to stretch your mind a bit, if you haven't already read it.
Just read it. just seems like more unworkable fancy. His view on pre-industrial society is rose tinted and his proposal for an alternative, which I'll at least credit him with putting forth, is pure fantasy. I understand it's satisfying to say you don't like having to work for a living and this kind of thing can feel cathartic to imagine, ideally with friends while passing around a joint in your early twenties, but it's just nonsense. No, we are not going to be able to spontaneously organize society such that the waste gets handled joyously by small children by awarding them medals for doing a good job. No, we are not going to leave it up to people's whims to accomplish necessary jobs like providing us with food or maintaining our buildings and infrastructure. No, war will not be abolished because of this slick new idea where we all just chill out, war over resources is older than humanity, the monkeys and apes do it.
if your solution to some problem relies on “If everyone would just…” then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At not time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they’re not going to start now.
Beyond even the unfeasibility of his solutions I find something spiritually dismal about them. This yearning for a dead past and uninterest in further progress. I find it frankly pathetic. It is the attitude of a stoner with arrested development. A society of Bob Blacks would never explore the stars, wouldn't not have sent a contingent to the moon, would not have even ever come down from the trees. I welcome him and those who think like him to find their fellows and move into some still remaining stretch of wilderness and live life as they wish.
aqouta
2mo ago
Thanks for your thorough reply!
Yes and no. Clearly, things are better than even three years ago with the original release of ChatGPT. But, the economic and practical impact is unimpressive. If you subtract out the speculative investment parts, it's almost certainly negative economically.
And look - I love all things tech. I have been a raving enthusiastic nutjob about self-driving cars and VR and - yes - AI for a long time. But, for that very reason, I try to see soberly what actual impact it has. How am I living differently? Am I outsourcing much code or personal email or technical design work to AI? No. Are some friends writing nontrivial code with AI? They say so, and I bet it's somewhat true, but they're not earning more, or having more free time off, or learning more, or getting promoted.
I think you're a little blinkered here. It takes more than a couple years to retool the whole economy with new tech. It was arguably a decade or more after arpanet before the internet started transforming life as we know it. LLMs are actually moving at a break neck pace in comparison. I work at a mega bank and just attended a town hall where every topic of discussion was about how important it is to implement LLM in every process. I'm personally working to integrate it into our department's workflow and every single person I work with now uses it every day. Even at this level of engagement it's going to be months to years cutting through the red tape and setting up pipelines before our analyst workflows can use the tech directly. There is definitely value in it and it's going to be integrated into everything people do going forward even if you can't have it all rolled out instantly. We have dozens of people whose whole job is to go through huge documents and extract information related to risk/taxes/legal/ect, key it in and then do analysis on whether these factors are in line with our other investments. LLMs, even if they don't progress one tiny bit further, will be transformative for this role and there are millions of roles like this throughout the economy.
I think that is the crux of our disagreement: I hear you saying "AI does amazing things people thought it would not be able to do," which I agree with. This is not orthogonal from, but also not super related to my point: claims that AI progress will continue to drastically greater heights (AGI, ASI) are largely (but not entirely) baseless optimism.
Along with these amazing things it comes with a ripple of it getting steadily better at everything else. There's a real sense in which it's just getting better at everything. It started out decent at some areas of code, maybe it could write sql scripts ok but you'd need to double check it. Now it can handle any code snippet you throw at it and reliably solve bugs one shot on files with fewer than a thousand lines. The trajectory is quick and the tooling around it is improving at a rate that soon I expect to be able to just write a jira ticket and reasonably expect the code agent to solve the problem.
Nothing has ever surpassed human level abilities. That gives me a strong prior against anything surpassing human level abilities. Granted, AI is better at SAT problems than many people, but that's not super shocking (Moravec's Paradox).
Certainly this is untrue. Calculators trivially surpass human capabilities in some ways. Nothing has surpassed humans in every single aspect. There is a box of things that AI can currently do better than most humans and a smaller box within that of things it can do better than all humans. These boxes are both steadily growing. Once something is inside that box it's inside it forever, humans will never retake the ground of best pdf scraper per unit of energy. Soon, if it's not already the case, humanity will never retake the ground of best sql script writer. If the scaffolding can be built and the problems made legible this box will expand and expand and expand. And as it expands you get further agglomeration effects. If it can just write sql scripts then it can just write sql scripts. If it's able to manage a server and can write sql scripts now it can create a sql server instance and actually build something. If it gains other capabilities these all compliment each other and bring out other emergent capabilities.
The number of people, in my techphillic and affluent social circle, willing to pay even $1 to use AI remains very low.
If people around you aren't paying for it then they're not getting the really cutting edge impressive features. The free models are way behind the paid versions.
It has been at a level I describe as "cool and impressive, but useless" forever.
AGI maybe not, but useless? You're absolutely wrong here. With zero advancement at all in capabilities or inference cost reductions what we have now, today, is going to change the world as much as the internet and smart phones. Unquestionably.
No, and that's exactly point! AI 2027 says well surely it will plateau many doublings past where it is today. I say that's baseless speculation. Not impossible, just not a sober, well-founded prediction. I'll freely admit p > 0.1% that within a decade I'm saying "wow I sure was super wrong about the big picture. All hail our AI overlords." But at even odds, I'd love to take some bets.
Come up with something testable and I am game.
aqouta
2mo ago
Absolutely not. Deep research is a useful tool for specific tasks, but it cannot produce an actual research paper. Its results are likely worthless to anyone except the person asking the question who has the correct context.
This clears the bar of most Americans.
If you build a bigger rocket and point it at the moon, it will get incrementally closer to the moon. But you will never reach it.
If you have some of the smartest people in the world and a functionally unlimited budget you can actually use the information you gain from launching those rockets to learn what you need to do to get to the moon. That is was actually happened after all so I really don't see how this metaphor is working for you. The AI labs are not just training bigger and bigger models without adjusting their process. We've only even had chain of thought models for 6 months yet and there is surely more juice to squeeze out of optimizing that kind of scaffolding.
This is like claiming moore's law can't get us to the next generation of chips because we don't yet know exactly how to build them. Ok, great but we've been making these advancements at a break neck pace for a while now and the doubters have been proven wrong at basically whatever rate they were willing to lay down claims.
Speaking of claims you've decided not to answer my questions, that's fine, continue with whatever discussion format you like but I'd be really interested in you actually making a prediction about where exactly you think ai progress will stall out. what is the capability level you think it will get to and then not surpass?
aqouta
2mo ago
Simply scaling existing methods, while potentially achieving impressive results, cannot achieve AGI.
Why do you believe this? Is it an article of faith?
It seems like we absolutely do know what lies ahead on the path to AGI and it's incrementally getting better at accomplishing cognitive tasks. We have proof that it's possible too because humans have general intelligence and accomplish this with far fewer units of energy. You can, at this very moment, if you're willing to pay for the extremely premium version, go on chat gpt and have it produce a better research paper on most topics than, being extremely generous to humanity here, 50% of Americans could given three months and it'll do it before you're back from getting coffee. A few years ago it could barely maintain a conversation and a few years before that it was letter better than text completion.
This is rather like having that LW conversation after we'd already put men into orbit. Like you understand that we did actually eventually land on the moon right? I know it's taking the metaphor perhaps to seriously but that story ends up with Alfonso being right in the end. We can, in fact, build spaceships that land on the moon and even return. We in fact did so.
Now we have some of the greatest minds on earth dedicated to building AGI, many of them seem to think we're actually going to be able to accomplish it and people with skin in the game are putting world historical amounts of wealth behind accomplishing this goal.
I agree and have for some time agreed that Trump is an abomination and embarrassment to conservatives. The problem for actual conservatives is what is there to actually do here? Join the Democrats? There are some rational positions where that is the greater of the two evils. Perhaps this abundance agenda is the invitation they need to throw behind a Democrat side of the aisle that disavows a lot of the leftie fringe that the rest of the Democrats have been a little too beholden to.
More options
Context Copy link