domain:alexberenson.substack.com
Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
25m ago
They think its a complete coverup, particularly the 180 turn of Patel and Bondi after an administration 'campaign promise' of sorts to get to the truth of things. Kash Patel's Joe Rogan appearance started the backpedaling with things like 'oh I didn't know the cell camera's were broken, but I've reviewed the footage'.
Are they fingering Trump too, or is it a case of good Czar, bad boyars?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
26m ago
Okay, so, this is all a fairly decent summary, but all it demonstrates is that the Democrat-Republican split basically failed to map in any coherent way onto a liberal-conservative axis well into the 21st century. You’re correct that Bob Dole and Jerry Falwell would have been horrified if their daughter had been caught dating Dimebag Darrell Abbott; however, a good mainstream 90’s liberal like Phil Donahue would be equally horrified, because Dimebag was the kind of guy who proudly displayed Confederate imagery. (And, again, he’d be far more mortified by his daughter dating Phil Anselmo, especially after seeing this clip of Phil throwing a Roman and shouting “White power!”)
And hell, even if you want to stick to country music and you want to claim Jennings as a “liberal”, how about guys like Travis Tritt? An openly Republican Bush-voting conservative, who had long hair and a beard throughout the whole period you’re referring to? I don’t think Southern guys at the time would have thought Tritt looked out of place at a honky-tonk — let alone that he looked like a leftist academic.
Basically what I’m saying is that beards and long(ish) hair could pattern-match to “working-class Southern man who drinks a lot and doesn’t act like Ned Flanders, but who also doesn’t like faggots or egghead professors” just as easily as it could pattern-match to “ex-hippie with proper NPR-approved beliefs” during the time period OP referred to.
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
36m ago
I believe tha AGI is possible and is likely happen, but I also believe that Sam Altman is an inveterate grifter and the generative large language models are (for the most part) an evolutionary dead-end.
TournamentFishing
42m ago
A farmer once told me "farmers run land management companies with a farming problem"
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
43m ago
And my point is that anyone who was remotely intelligent and vaguely familiar with both the internet and how LLMs function ought to have anticipated this.
The OP is the kind of person who is surprised when "Boaty McBoatface" wins the online naming poll despite prior precedent.
benmmurphy
1hr ago
If this was true I have no idea how this didn't get him killed. There seems to be two outcomes. You go to jail, or someone is going to flip out because you didn't go to jail and murder you.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1hr ago
Again, these are correct signals that I am sending intentionally. This IS a major part of my life. I DO spend at least 25 hours a week on anime and games. If you are looking to do "all the other stuff" that isn't gaming and anime and squeeze it around then you're not my 1 in 1000 and I don't want to marry you. That just sounds like a recipe for constant conflict and strife. While some amount of compromise is important in a relationship, and you should sometimes do things the other person wants to do for their sake, the less it's necessary because you both want the same things, the better. If one person expects to go out and do things all the time and the other wants to stay home all the time then at any point in time only one of them is getting their way. So if anyone sees this and realizes that I'm not the right person for them because I'm literally not the right person for them then good, we can both save some time and try to find someone more compatible. In practice, this did turn into me getting very few hits for precisely that reason. Most women saw my profile, made this assumption about me (correctly), they thought this was a negative trait, and then they didn't want to talk to me. Mission accomplished.
Because one did want to talk to me. Instead of dating and/or marrying someone like that, I found someone with whom I get to keep doing videogames and anime and my wife will do them with me. Well, she doesn't care for anime that much, but we play lots of games together. Sometimes we're just sitting next to each other playing completely separate games and she'll giggle as the monsters die and it's adorable. And sometimes she'll want to go somewhere and do something and I'll suck it up and go because it's not very often, because she's mostly like me and genuinely wants to be at home most of the time.
PokerPirate
1hr ago
you have to either water down "very large" from 70%+ down to like 30%
Yes, I meant on the order of 30%. That's not a majority, but it's large enough that you can't just assume that everyone in the world agrees with it. For the type of framing that OP used, I think you need the percentage of people to disagree with it to be on the order of the lizardman constant.
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
1hr ago
It's not "naive" it's generating an average. If your training data is full of extraneous material (or otherwise insufficiently tokenized/vetted) your response will also be full of extraneous material, and again its not rationalizing it's averaging.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1hr ago
Sure, but so does everybody else.
faceh
1hr ago
The simple fact is that there's like a 2:1 guy:girl ratio on the apps.
And the girls are much, MUCH more selective than the guys.
So the pool of women being limited is, inherently, the issue. Some guys will lose, guaranteed. Its not a traditional market where you can achieve mutual gains through trade.
And in a zero sum game, optimizing to try to win just makes it harder on everyone at once.
And it IS a zero sum game. Every guy that pairs off with a woman is making it harder for the remaining guys to get what they want.
So telling guys to optimize their profiles is just increasing the competitive pressure with very minimal change in success odds. Improving YOUR chances makes some other guy's chances decrease, and vice versa. If you both compete as hard as you can, most of the efforts are wasted for no real gain.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
1hr ago
If I am not mistaken that wasn't the kind of post he was making. I would suggest you're responding to post along the lines of "We should figure out how to stop these disasters or bad things from happening to children." That may be a post worth making, but wasn't made by OP.
Lewis2
1hr ago
I can't tell you how many arguments in bars I got into where someone would insist that this school district just down the road was teaching kids that white people are bad blah blah blah and can you believe what these kids are hearing about gay people only to find out that they got this information from their neighbor's cousin's kid
Perhaps my experience was atypical, but in my neck of the woods, the neighbor’s cousin’s kid brought receipts. After high school students found that their complaints about their teachers were being ignored, one or two started secretly filming the offending remarks and sharing them on social media. A scandal ensued, the administration was livid (at the students, not the teachers), a few teachers lost their jobs, the community was in uproar, and so on. I thought the most unfortunate aspect of the debacle was that so many people took your position—“the kids can’t be trusted,” “they’re all just exaggerating,” “if this was true, the administration would be on it”—until some kid risked expulsion to provide proof. Notably, in neighboring school districts, kids complained about precisely the same issues and had many of the same stories, but no one was brave enough to secretly film the lectures and share them online, so a lot of people assumed the problems were restricted to the one bad school district. Given the circumstances, I find that unlikely.
Rov_Scam
1hr ago
Because there are way more of them, and other guys aren't optimizing for them. The number of guys with shitty profiles is mind blowing. So is the number of girls with shitty profiles, but if they don't set their sights too high someone halfway decent will message them. Guys don't have that luxury.
TitaniumButterfly
1hr ago
To'Wrathh
Goodness gracious, is that how that's spelled? I'd been thinking Turrath. Yikes.
You'd like to find one that doesn't find your interests repugnant, though.
And again, why optimize to compete for the same limited pool of women that every other guy is now optimizing for.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
2hr ago
You don't think "evolution" works fast enough to make you more likely to be attractive if you had an attractive mother and grandmother?
Natural selection doesn’t cause population-level shifts in attractiveness in just a couple generations. Natalya might (or might not) inherit aspects of her mom’s good looks, but that’s genetics. Evolution needs sustained selective pressure across many generations to change the frequency of traits in a population. If evolution worked that fast, we’d see dramatic changes in appearance across just a few generations any time a war or famine hit. Traits like attractiveness are polygenic and influenced by culture, grooming, health, etc.
A_Wee_Hearts_Toll
2hr ago
e grid is getting worse and is going to keep getting worse due to Green energy mandates.
your link 404s chage it to https://www.eugyppius.com/p/the-eu-as-suicide-pact-or-how-germany
No_one
2hr ago
OP wishes you to know that he knows LLMs will write whatever if allowed to do so and this whole thing was neonazis ( they started the Stancil trolling) figuring out that if you contaminate grok's context enough it's going to say silly crap.
No_one
2hr ago
I haven't seen Gemini do it much.
Mostly what strikes me is stunning naivete in places, basically repeats whatever official sources say without reflection. But that's to be expected.
aqouta
2hr ago
I think you and @ArjinFerman are both wrong about the point. The optimal amount of fraud is not zero is about how as you eliminate fraud and increase social trust you increase the incentive to fraud and the marginal cost of reducing fraud rises asymptotically such that the last little bit of fraud isn't worth the squeeze. The point isn't that you tolerate fraud as in not police it, it's that you police it but you don't turn panopticon to go from 10 cases of fraud across the whole population to zero. You tolerate it in that you accept cases won't be zero, not that you don't do every reasonably cost effective thing you can do to reduce it.
Totalitarianit
2hr ago
This almost perfectly describes me, but my maintenance is a little more frequent. Haircut every 4 weeks.
They were anti-Trump to begin with, so they're absolutely on the 'Trump's on the list' bandwagon.
I've got to say, I don't know what to think after the 'nothing to see here' answer to the press.
More options
Context Copy link