cakealert

Perhaps refer to the root of this convo branch:

> Accrue more money pretty much indefinitely?

You changed the subject. Wealth wasn't it.

That requires explanation of a mechanism that would generate wealth for yourself (and your selected friends) and no one else. Capturing 100% of the value is all but impossible.

Also you didn't address what he said, possibly because it's complete nonsense?

> A lot of rich people just buy shares (other than at an IPO) and just move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating, or just swap already-existing overpriced properties around each other.

Liquidity is an emergent property. It doesn't change the fact that when you buy something the money moved.

The share is under your control, the money isn't. Being able to convert it at will doesn't change that. Also how much if anything it's worth when you go to convert it isn't under your control either.

> If you invest in $AMZN, much less so.

But that's only because there are other people who will happily move money into your control to get that share from you. Doesn't change the fact that the money you spent acquiring it has moved out of your control onward in the economy.

> move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating

So your claim is that wealthy people aren't interested in generating more wealth for themselves? What exactly is it you are claiming? Sounds like something a populist youtuber would say.

When you invest money it disappears from your control and you get a piece of paper that says you own shares in an entity.

> The elites always promise us trickle down economics, maybe this time it will happen.

Are you under the impression that the wealthy keep their money in a savings account?

They have more money than they can spend so they invest it, what do you think investment does?

Instead of a mouth tape get one of those moldable plastic mouth guard things from amazon. And mold the hole shut.

> No, based on cURL's history, it really seems like they would love to have found a really novel bug.

You just confirmed that you didn't read the article.

"Eventually, I was instead offered that someone else, who has access to the model, could run a scan and analysis on curl for me using Mythos and send me a report."

The purpose of IQ tests is to derive a value that would predict other values. The inverse is also true.

Given a multitude of such values it would even be possible to get back to a precise IQ value.

IQ tests are just factor analysis artifacts. You can dream up 100 questions that you conjecture may have something to do with intelligence and not even know the answers and have 10,000 people answer them. Product of the factor analysis of the answers will yield a normal distribution which you can then center on 100. Calibration can be more complicated than that but you get the point.

The natural circumstances people find themselves in are also just noisy questions.

Why the focus on Lynn?

Focusing on his critics is more illuminating and damaging to your presumed position:

Systematic review by Wicherts et al: "In light of all the available IQ data of over 37,000 African testtakers, only the use of unsystematic methods to exclude the vast majority of data could result in a mean IQ close to 70. On the basis of sound methods, the average IQ remains close to 80."

They of course follow it with the conjecture: "Although this mean IQ is clearly lower than 100, we view it as unsurprising in light of the potential of the Flynn effect in Africa (Wicherts, Borsboom, & Dolan, 2010) and common psychometric problems associated with the use of western IQ tests among Africans."

It's always curious how "common psychometric problems associated with the use of western IQ tests among Africans" don't carry over to economics and other things. Wouldn't you expect them to have similar problems with other western "ideas"? Also interesting how Easterners adapted to western IQ tests so well they are better at them than the West.

The other such labeled companies have contracts too.

> Because it's not a military asset? It's a privately-owned asset.

Are you under the impression that the military is submitting Anthropic API calls?

Whatever model the military is using is as much of an asset as the F35 they purchased.

Depending on their agreements, you could argue it's a rented asset. Doesn't change any calculus.

This is fairly naive, Elon isn't the only investor in SpaceX.

My guess is "that they did the math" and had an engineering study which convinced them that getting AI datacenters into space will make sense.

It's also not hard to imagine why, the process alone once perfected could be reused for asteroid mining for example, then mirogravity manufacturing, either of which alone would be enormous capital intensive projects. Even if AI dataenters in space are break-even it would be a massive win for SpaceX and leave their competition far behind.

Yes that guy is extremely weird, he should delegate operations and community management to someone who isn't weird and stick to development.

The same way that having motorized farming equipment was a race to the bottom for farmers? Perhaps. Turned out to be a good outcome for most involved.

Just like farmers who couldn't cope with the additional leverage their equipment provided them, devs who can't leverage this technology will have to "go to the cities".

This wasn't even true 10 years ago...

The idea that a group of people would spend so much of their time trying to get linux to work on Apple hardware through reverse engineering always seemed absolutely crazy to me. I would never consider buying Apple hardware precisely because it doesn't support linux and the work they put in achieves nothing because the risk will always remain that they will lock the hardware further. Nevermind the fact that they will likely never fully reverse engineer all the components.

It just seems like a completely pointless endeavor... perhaps some people buy into it? why would anyone buy overpriced hardware with partial support that may one day be gone? the enhanced battery life doesn't really hold much appeal to me, and the arm architecture if anything is just another signal to stay away.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that they wanted the achievement on their resume, and in that given recent developments they succeeded?

A sufficiently seeded torrent is a high latency static CDN.

You just need a client that can make use of it.

I'm not sure if anyone will be interested in making one however, you can already get a patched Spotify APK from the usual mobile piracy spaces that's good enough.

When they say "worse" they do mean the AI will get better which will be worse because they are ideologically opposed to AI.

when you combine a residential proxy with a tool like curl-impersonate (there are libraries in Go for this type of fingerprint spoofing now) they dont even show up as scrapers anymore, just users. especially when they adjust timings to mimic humans.

clouflare only blocks the most dumb of bots, there are still a lot of them.

this is why cloudflare will issue javascript challenges to you even when you are using google chrome with a VPN, they are desperate to appear to be doing something. and every VPN is used to crawl as well. a slightly more sophisticated bot passes the cloudflare javascript challenge as well, there really is nothing they can do to win here.

i know some teams that got annoyed with residential proxies (they are usually sold as socks5 but can be buggy and low bandwidth) so they invested into defeating the cloudflare javascript challenge and now crawl using 1000's of VPN endpoints at over 100 Gbit/s.

> Having beliefs, principles or values is not lying to oneself.

The lie is that you adopted "beliefs, principles or values" which cannot ever serve your interests, you have subsumed yourself into something that cannot ever reciprocate. Ideology by definition even alters your perceived interests, a more potent subversion cannot be had (up to now, with potential involuntary neural interfaces on the horizon).

> Citation needed

I will not be providing one, but that you believe one is required is telling. There is no further point to this discussion.

> I prefer my positions strong and based on reality, not based on lies (to myself included).

Then you would be the exception, not the rule.

And if you find yourself attached to any ideology, then you are also wrong about yourself. Subscribing to any ideology is by definition lying to yourself.

Being able to place yourself into the shoes of others is something evolution spent 1000s of generations hardwiring into us, I'm very confident in my reading of the situation.

Gemini 2.5 was a full broadside on OpenAI's ship.

After Gemini 3.0 the OpenAI damage control crews all drowned.

Not only is it vastly better, it's also free.

I find this particular benchmark to be in agreement with my experiences: https://simple-bench.com

The answer to that is simple: They hate AI and the environment angle is just an excuse, much like their concern over AI art. Human psychology is such that many of these people actually believe the excuse too.

It helps when you put yourself in the shoes of people like that and ask yourself, if I find out tomorrow that the evidence that AI is actually good for the environment is stronger, will I believe it? Will it even matter for my opposition to AI? The answer is no.

The real question is if AI replaces labor, what will keep democracy in place?

People who advocate for things like UBI don't seem to realize that when voters don't have a share in the productivity of their nation, they become 100% a liability. The reason democracy persists is that the powers that be aren't incentivized to destroy democracy as it would harm them too. In 10 years that will no longer be the case. Arguably, you can already see this today as the future expectations affect the present.

The US could just adopt a law which automatically seizes assets from the EU to cover any such fines. Demonstrate where true power lies.

Define this type of action as "bureaucratic piracy". Any rule which preferentially targets US interests over domestic either in its creation or its enforcement. Apply some of that "disparate outcomes" logic.

This is almost certainly just for show (as in, they would have no reliance on it and not expect it to ever be triggered).

They will have agents both known and unknown operating at those companies. A company cannot as a policy set out to violate the law (if it's smart). It would be trivial for individuals to have covert channels set up.

There has never been a point where tipping point public demand for regulation did not lead to regulation (if it was for example unconstitutional to regulate). Which makes the assertion that regulation is the solution unprovable.

If the FDA never got established, would firms emerge that put their seals of approval on medicine and become trusted? We will never know. It's pointless to point out what happened before the FDA and after because these are not random samples, the FDA didn't get randomly created. The demand for the FDA if denied would have transformed into the demand for something else.

We will also never know the progress in medicine we lost due to the red tape. There would of certainly been scandals and deaths, but if we got a cancer cure as a result would it not have been worth it?

I suspect that if regulation was not a feature of government we would of solved it in other ways, such as the ability to pierce the corporate veil both civilly and criminally for gross negligence etc. And third parties whose only product is trust - these parties would have infinitely more incentive to preserve that trust than governments.