domain:nunosempere.com
anti_dan
4m ago
I think the WSJ article was probably an unforced error on their part. They have no way of proving the fidelity of this alleged document in court without burning their source, and there really is no journalistic justification for source anonymity in this case either. Selective leaking of documents involved in a criminal investigation are not something a responsible publication should be doing. I know many do it. And Watergate is, for some reason, considered peak journalism. But really this sort of thing is peak hackery.
phailyoor
9m ago
Honestly I don't think about it 99% of the time because I just grill in irl and the enemy hasn't come for that yet.
If I was a hardcore hokey pokey dancer then sure this would be a major problem but it's really not an issue.
it's them who has power over you, not you over them.
This is in fact true when the enemy controls all of the institutions and positions of power. Where for many people, simply having a job requires many implicit and several explicit oaths of loyalty to the enemy. I am fortunate enough that I am not one of those people.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
12m ago
Information? No. Anecdotal observations? A few. But might I suggest you just create a thread in Small Scale questions or something?
sodiummuffin
21m ago
Good idea I can say that, as it's a way to refer to the event without saying his name.
Different event, same effect. The Ferguson Effect refers to the rise in crime following the death of Michael Brown, and by extension any similar event. (Michael Brown being the guy who protestors chanted "hands up don't shoot" over, who wasn't actually holding his hands up and was in fact attacking the officer and grabbing his gun shortly after having robbed a store and assaulted the store employee). It was somewhat contentious whether the Ferguson effect was real, but then we had the Floyd Effect which was much bigger and less ambiguous.
Pongalh
23m ago
So very sorry to veer off topic but I didn't want to make a top post with this mere inquiry:
So I'm writing a piece on the right and AI art. The Trump administration really seems to love it. (See the Alligator Alcatraz tweets etc.) Does anyone have any information on partisanship, ideology and AI art adoption? Much appreciated!
Am I missing something here?
Imagine someone who not only unironically uses the term human capital, and unambiguously considers themselves as higher human capital, but who also conspicuously talks about how the Republican Party has really gone downhill since it started catering to the tastes of those lower human capital.
iprayiam3's characterization of Turok can apply to Hanania in general- someone who is generally upset that their intelligence and self-evident superiority aren't met with the deference and leadership they feel is their due. You can talk about Hanania, the social critic, but what that misses is Hanania, the would-be luminary / public intellectual / movement leader. Critics are common, but it takes a special sort of Influencer who is Intelligent enough to deserve to be listened to.
In mechanical terms, Hanania is/was a journalist who gained noticed in the 2000s by writing for far-right publications (that he has since disavowed). But from those publications he made connections with the sort of people who read them and more mainstream right-leaning media to sometimes write for those, and in turn use those as a further spring board. Hanania is a sharp enough wit that he can stand out by poking midwits, and enjoys it for both its own sake and the adulation it brings from those happy to see the victims pricked.
IIRC, part of what made Hanania stand out / get excommunicated from the respectable media (besides his not-quite-secret further right entry point) was that his schitk of being an angry libertarian also made him one of the earlier public critics/opponents to what we now call DEI. Hanania was always something of a shock-jock writer, picking arguments to provoke, and mocking woke / social justice / DEI efforts was something where he was ahead of the crowd. That boosted his credentials in some circles, especially those more interested in racial-IQ science, in the 'only Diogenes is wise enough to tell it like it is' sense. However, intellectual humility is not exactly something Hanania gets accused of having too much of, and he (or at least his support group) would probably tend to fixate more on Diogenes' acerbic wit and less on the joke.
This comes to the political pretensions... not really ever, but the closest in the the early-mid-2010s, pre-Trump. Trump rose because there was a power vacuum of voter base trust in the Republican establishment. That vacuume was because the Republican base disagreed with the Democrats on a lot and wanted someone who would fight. Hanania was also someone who disagreed with the Democrats on the lot and wanted to fight. This is a now decade-old vibe, but there was a vibe that Republicans were looking for something different than the stale old Bush-era republicans. (Memorably, the Republican Party elite had been taking the lesson via post-Romney autopsy that the change they needed was to become more like the Democrats. This, uh, didn't work out for that wing of the party.)
The fact that the Republican base went with someone like Trump, rather than someone like more Hanania-adjacent, is somewhere between 'something that will never be forgiven' and 'It's not like I wanted to be popular with you' and 'I knew you were all idiots anyway.'
I don't know / recall if Hanania ever made an overt play for Republican Party influence, but he's been bitter about it in ways that are more akin to a spurned would-be-lover than an outsider. Hananaia has written about how conservative republicans are worse (in some ways) than democrats, about how Trump has a stranglehold on the party, about how the party has become the low human capital party (since Trump), etc. etc. The sort of thing that gives the impression that Hanania sure would think it was a good thing if the Republican party was replaced with people who met Hanania's standards, which of course includes agreeing with Hanania, and would naturally elevating Hanania-like people like Hanania into policy power. (But, of course, he'd never be so low-brow as to directly appeal to his own greatness.)
Despite that, Hananaians occasionally make scratches, or at least associations, with political relevance. Hanania was allegedly / accused of contributing to the Project 2025 republican wishlist / template that the Trump administration cribbed from for early policy priorities. At the same time (loosely / more recently), Hanania did a media tour publicly professing regret for ever voting for Trump (which, of course, was due to Hanania being insufficiently Hanania and taking his reasoning further). Hanania thus tries to shape Trumpian politics, while also keeping as far distance as he can. If Trump zigs, he will zag, and comment at length at how bad zigging is.
Hananaia acts, in other words, loosely like a would-be government-in-exile hoping that, should the hated regime fall, people will naturally look to them for guidance. However, this is undercut a bit by how the would-be government is led by a hated aristocrat who openly loathes the peasants, and hardly loved in return. Still, he's useful enough to enough people that he continues to exist.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
27m ago
Diminishing returns != no returns.
Per year, it costs more to send someone to college or uni than it does to send them to school. If they come out of it with additional skills, or even just the credentials to warrant that investment, it's worth it. Even if you need to go into temporary debt for that purpose, as long as it's something less stupid than underwater basket weaving..
Just look at the wage disparities within humans. A company might be willing to pay hundreds or thousands of times more for a leading ML researcher or quant than they would for a janitor. The same applies to willingness-to-pay for every more competent AI models. Could you not afford to pay for AI Einstein if your competitor will?
Training costs are still going up, it isn't all test time compute. I don't know if we're going to have super-intelligence too cheap to meter (as opposed to mere intelligence on par with an average human), but what can we do but hope?
anti_dan
28m ago
Didnt this exact thing happen to the 'Ok' handsign a while ago. It was hilarious.
anti_dan
31m ago
Certainly few, if any, people are stealing tomatoes and boxes of cereal.
Actually there is a fix to the shoplifting problem, but it requires quite a bit of strategy, and probably some Republican Food Stamp reform to go through. If all you carry is healthy food and basic necessities like TP, you will have basically zero shoplifting problems. You have to, essentially, lock only your baby formula and razors.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
34m ago
I would endorse something like:
"Intelligence is the general-purpose cognitive ability to build accurate models of the world and then use those models to effectively achieve one's goals."
Or
"Intelligence is a measure of an agent's ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments."
This, of course, requires the assessor to be cognizant of the physical abilities and sensory modalities available to the entity. Einstein with locked-in-syndrome would be just as smart, but unable to express it. If Stephen Hawking had been unlucky enough to be born a few decades earlier, he might have died without being able to achieve nearly as much as he did IRL.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
42m ago
The comment you replied to is filtered.
naraburns
nihil supernum
44m ago
I see he's banned now lol. But now that I'm here, I'm curious to know if your perspective is the prevailing opinion here.
WhiningCoil is flirting with a permanent ban himself, actually.
"Deport them all" is certainly an opinion some people have here, but as loudly as it is sometimes expressed I would not bet that it is prevailing. It's not uncommon for people to make the libertarian argument for open borders, for example--Bryan Caplan has some cachet in the rationalsphere.
I think your circumstances are not unusual. But there is a potential rejoinder you might want to consider--
My eldest is going to enter the same public high school I went to. The children of the first generation immigrants I went to school with now have their own families and, like me, have stayed in the same county to raise their children. They're indistinguishable from my family in the ways that matter to me.
That's great--my classical liberal heart is warmed--but it would be interesting to know for certain whether you are indistinguishable from their family in the ways that matter to them. If one demographic says "we love everyone, we help everyone equally, this is how we all work together to make the world a better place," but the other demographic responds "thanks for the help, we're going to take everything that is given to us to help our ingroup and, if possible, to become the dominant power, at which point we will then suppress our outgroup." The quote from Frank Herbert's Dune books is--
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.
I am not saying this is how your neighbors think! I hope it is not how they think. But that is the angle and the concern that tends to arise when people make arguments like the one you have made here.
Imagine if the enemy said "doing the hokey pokey is an endorsement of our cause." Or alternatively "doing the hokey pokey is pledging loyalty our cause." Well I would find it a pretty compelling reason to stop doing the hokey pokey.
At some point, this is just you allowing people you describe as your enemy to literally dictate what you can and can't do, which isn't a position of power, strength, or strategy.
If they get that much on your nerves, it's them who has power over you, not you over them. You're not defeating Newspeak by speaking in the old way -- you're creating a contra-Newspeak that's just as controlling, just as silly, and just as petty as what your opponents are doing. The fact that you're saying this is going on even in your own thoughts actually indicates that the Newspeak is working on you, not that you're resisting it. To put it in conflict terms, like you like, the enemy's in your head, which means you've already lost.
All the genuine hokey pokey lovers in the world aren't enough to outnumber the enemy's loyalists, and unfortunately they're all going to be misjudged as being part of the enemy's group just for doing what they love. They'll probably have to post a sign outside their gym that says "we don't endorse the enemy."
Alternatively, they might just continue to do what they love, and keep grilling dancing. Because, just perhaps, they won't mind if someone misjudges them as "part of the enemy's group," because they'd rather live life to the fullest than let ingroup/outgroup dynamics shape every aspect of their life.
I'm going to say to you what I say to the woke left when they similarly respond with fierce intensity to things the right does: living this way sounds absolutely exhausting, and soul-destroying, not life-giving or powerful.
phailyoor
56m ago
Was thinking of making a higher level post but I'll just reply here:
Imagine if the enemy said "doing the hokey pokey is an endorsement of our cause." Or alternatively "doing the hokey pokey is pledging loyalty our cause." Well I would find it a pretty compelling reason to stop doing the hokey pokey. Even though I might like that dance, and have to sit out for that at the school dance. Refusing to do it is enough of a low cost to me that I'm willing to cede the ground and let them make the hokey pokey an enemy loyalty pledge.
You might say that I should do the hokey pokey anyways to try to reclaim it from the enemy. That might be reasonable depending on the specific factors at the time, but when the overwhelming number of people doing it are loyal enemy servants, that's difficult. All the genuine hokey pokey lovers in the world aren't enough to outnumber the enemy's loyalists, and unfortunately they're all going to be misjudged as being part of the enemy's group just for doing what they love. They'll probably have to post a sign outside their gym that says "we don't endorse the enemy." But unfortunately holding that ground is not a battle that can be easily won.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
56m ago
Now would an Iranian newspaper be able to simply report "The Israeli military unit 'Allah is not real and muhammad was a big dum dum' is committing genocide"? I think not.
I mean, I think they would report that, because it would be a fantastic way to demonstrate that Israelis are infidels and blasphemers.
I also think if you're at the point of comparing yourself to the way Muslims respond to blasphemy, you should be seriously evaluating the emotional intensity you're applying to politics.
Beyond what @sarker pointed out, Grok 4 is practically deep-fried through training on test sets, and it only managed a 12% the last go around. OAI isn't the most trustworthiness company around, but I don't think they're fucking around here.
More options
Context Copy link