I don't want any one particular country, or organization, to "win" AI. I want AI capabilities to remain diffuse and spread out, so that everybody has access to approximately equal levels of AI. If anything, you might say that I want "Open Source to win AI".
Didn't they just announce they were going to be surveilling all their employees screens and keystrokes for AI training? Is that just for the love of the game rather than as part of a product?
Right, in particular my belief long term is that there must be functional open source AI + Robotics that common people can own and operate.
Otherwise big corporations and/or governments will own everything and most folks will be serfs. However if you can buy a few robots and go run a homestead then there can be a counterbalance of people not beholden to the system.
A telling sign of techno-feudalism will be AI becoming heavily regulated and even illegal for common people to make or own. You know because “public safety”.
This smells like how markets would work well if everyone had a little capital. But money is too fungible. The more you have the more you can get.
But if electricity and hardware is a proxy for AI then those things are much less fungible. And if those two things in turn are not tied to the hip with money.
> If anything, you might say that I want "Open Source to win AI".
Has OSS won in terms of being software for the people?
From a standpoint of personal self interest, here's an argument I rarely hear made, perhaps some will consider it tasteless, but I find compelling.
I want the US to win AI because if it doesn't, China will, and China's functionally an ethnostate, and I'm not Han Chinese.
That's not the only reason I don't want China to win. We're talking about a country where freedom of expression and democratic representation are foreign ideas. But it so happens that I was born not Han Chinese and have no ancestry in China, and the preponderance of evidence over the last few decades shows that the result of this, is that China will pretty much never "share the wealth" with me in any meaningful form. I can't really immigrate there, start a business there and so on without encountering huge risks that stem from a system which preferences Han Chinese. It is run by a government which takes wealth away from non-Han Chinese that get too successful.
AI is going to reshape the global economy one way or another, maybe for better, maybe for worse. But if the Chinese come out ahead of us economically in the process, pretty much all non-Chinese will suffer because that is how they operate their state, and their economy is an instrument of their state.
And yes -- if you are also non-Chinese -- in the long run one way or another this will hit you in the pocketbook too; sooner or later a shift in global commerce will increase your cost of living.
- very little of this has ever extended outside Chinese borders, apart from the extraterritorial policing of Chinese nationals; they've not "gone global" in the way the US did
"it so happens that I was born not [American] and have no ancestry in [America], and the preponderance of evidence over the last few decades shows that the result of this, is that [American billionaires] will pretty much never "share the wealth" with me in any meaningful form." Moreover, American and Russian billionaires have shown substantial interest in making the politics of my home country much worse.
The contents of this post, in some parts, is somewhat alien to me. The need to pick a side, root for someone, and figure out a winner. It's very sports team like and detracts from the goals, effects and outcomes of the topic itself. It is entirely possible that there are no good and bad sides, nor is there any need for someone to win any kind of made up trophy.
It's not a chart of investment by patriotic US citizens seeking to better the country such that the country "wins" .. more like a chart of military and motte and bailey investments made by individual feuding Norman clans each seeking to be the last castle standing and in control of all the throttle points and gates across the country and ideally the world.
This is a good time to reflect on the etymology of "Banana Republic" [0]. I suspect most people don't see fruit companies as a major threat, but they'll kill and ravage to get people cheap bananas.
This idea that the morals of the people making investments is in any way relevant is a bit of a misframe. Investors are capable of any evil, the default position is of surprise if one of them is investing out of some sense of responsibility. The point of the economic system is it channels some of the most ghoulish and horrible people to do good as an accidental side effect of their mad rush to wealth and power. Works really well, on average everyone wins.
I'd say that we might both agree that the US economy is currently heavily dependent on the circular jerking of numbers between AI boosters .. remains to be seen what the average person gets to eat from slops.
He praises a person for careful, nuanced takes, but then links to their writing where the first paragraph contains the sentence, "the human experience of art appreciation is indifferent to the source."
I usually don't even know what ai I'm using at any one time. It's just a choice in my IDE between a bunch of different models, and I switch models every now and then when the response time slows down too much (usually when the Americans start waking up). I have no loyalty to any one product.
I dislike Elon and all his fanboys, but I recognize maturity when one is able to move past their mistakes and wrong assumptions, so good on Geohot for that.
It's weird to expect anyone never to make a wrong step in their life, though I can see where this kind of armchair activism tends to be very popular (i.e. on social media)
The brunt cost is taken by the public, whose intellectual property has been expropriated. After all, the worth of our combined data would be at least the sum of the worth of the entire AI industry.
If you're an US citizen, I would understand why. If you're from elsewhere, looking at how both countries deal with foreign policies, perhaps the answer requires some serious reflection.
The real winner in this subthread: negative polarization. It's kind of incredible to watch. Show people two actors, point out the bad things one has done, and they instantly apply "enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic and turn into China boosters. Without even considering that there might be, say, other options.
China provides some great manufactured goods (I may well buy a Chinese car) and runs an ordered society with clean streets and good public transport. But because it doesn't have a free press, you and I (and most Chinese citizens) can't see what the downsides are. They're politely but firmly swept under the rug. And if you get on the wrong side of the "ordered society", it can go very badly for you.
Perhaps the real lesson is how the American right have so successfully poisoned the idea of competitive politics and free speech that a literal one party state looks better than .. whatever the hell is going on over there. People would opt to give up their right to politics simply in order to not be subjected to politics.
(remember how Mao recruited the first few Communists effectively one village at a time? The tradeoff was paying taxes to them rather than the Emperor, and if any imperial tax collectors wandered in to ask the rebels would deal with them. A common model for effective revolutions. But it absolutely hinges on being able to deliver better material conditions.)
I think this is a late realisation that people are having that none of those guys are good guys.
People passionate by science see rockets to go to mars, politicians see missiles and spy satellites.
I have a conviction that this was the intention all along. I really hope to be wrong about of this and there is a super good guy who will step up and stop all this nonsense.
I agree that the world where AI is a tool that everybody should have real access too should be the way, but history shows that power never came without oppression.
Majority of people took all the risks as paranoia and/or do not have enough understanding.
The moment those tools became slightly better, they started to being used against the wills of everyone who helped building them.
We should stop believing that those folks in charge are good guys or simply doing mistakes. They are doing exactly what they have been working on for 10+ more years.
Why don’t we go out in the streets and protest? Like the french did some centuries ago. If only we stop using instagram, youtube, if we stop searching in google, if we ditch claude, openai, for a couple of days… the billionaries will notice it and get hurt. That would be like a warning from our side
No, you see, if you lose your job you are poor. And in America, the poor don't deserve leisure. And any work they do has to be as punishing as possible, no matter how little effect that cruelty has on the bottom line
If there's no work to do, we can always invent more work. We just have to figure out who pays for it. Enjoying life is for those "communist" Europeans /s
The US single-handedly dominating AI at this point probably means a handful of tech overlords in charge of a surveillance society which depends on AI for everything, with some vague promises that everyone else will get some sort of allowance if they feel benevolent enough. For all existential risks discussed about ASI or whatever, having an oligarchy in complete control of this tech is maybe even worse.
So, I guess we all have to hope that more money does not necessarily lead to a "victory" here.
i cannot believe people take this idiot seriously still. all he does is jerk off about being the coolest guy ever and then openly suck off yarvin while calling himself a progressive. he was aaaalllllll about the US winning the AI war against "foreign adversaries" (his (paraphrased) words) but suddenly when he divines the guy he voted for (after complaining about the stupid poors "51% attacking" (his (paraphrased) words!))) was a professional economy ratfucker he dips to hong kong and gets a citizenship there its alllllll about china. i remember this motherfucker's elon glaze as a self described "elon voter". how is this motherfucker even fucking relevant? i hope the end of his life is without a penny and with no one to remember him. my life is tangibly worse due to epstein-class weirdos like him.
"He had a video on Youtube where he proudly gloated about how he voted for Trump in not one but two elections, how happy he is that he can now openly talk about it, how its a fresh start for US, how catastrophic Harris would have been.
Did he take down the video because of embarrassment or did he fear negative impact on his sales?"
So i asked him and he voted for Trump only in 2016 so at least this source is not true.
What i find interesting is the other article of geohot regarding AGI.
It seems that its financial possible for a handful of companies to learn everything.
It doesn't matter how we solve 'work':
It can be AGI, it can also be the already existing massive global scale Reinforcement Loop we all feed through using ChatGPT and co, it could be to compute RL or by buying experts teaching this knowledge to some AI system.
Companies also start to put the 'human' part into the agentic layer.
A while back anyone was somehow a benefit even if they did some kind of shitty work. Today i don't think this is true anymore. I would prefer to manage some avg ai than a shitty person.
The "effective altruism" people speedran the philosophical problem that good intentions do not necessarily produce good outcomes, far faster than any Communist revolution.
I don’t want the US to win anything ever again. They are a net negative in this world, obsessed with short term profits. Countries like China with long term objectives are better.
I'm a bit sad that the US now look less reliable (and, on average, more of a net negative) than China, but I can't blame anyone who has that impression right now. As long as the guy who sets the long term objectives is reasonably sane, I guess? Putin attacked Ukraine, Trump (and Bibi) attacked Iran, I'm hoping Xi is smarter and doesn't attack Taiwan, otherwise we can all say good bye to our jobs, and who "wins" AI will be the least important question on our minds...
It’s all about appearances isn’t it. America has dropped more bombs than China. When did China bomb a country last time? But appearances change and that is sad.
The only thing that changed was that America turned on its client states and started saying unhinged shit instead of appearances-speeches like spreading freedom and democracy.
Edit: replaced “has bombed more countries than China” with “dropped more bombs”
America’s goal is to rule the world through a hegemony built on fear and violence. With the current administration, it’s just that the mask has slipped.
Americans are all the same really, it doesn’t matter who voted for who: FIX your shit, fix your society. Stop oppressing the world with destructive capitalism. And yea maybe that means you have to slow down and live a little more inconveniently, but it will be for the betterment of the world.
I think China has too much to gain by looking like the word's stable alternative to America. What really gets me depressed is their current trajectory towards cultural homogeneity, even internally. There seems to be a real push to calcify the Han identity. I don't know why dictators are so drawn to homogenizing their own cultures when nature itself seems to point to diversity as strength. It leaves me still kind of hoping America is somehow able to pull its head out of its ass, but they'll have to overcome their own oligarchy and entrenched structures - Trump was a symptom.
China took a very rich business man and told him to stop showing his richness and start doing more for china.
China has a real plan for renewable energy and pushing through it.
China is smarter because it doesn't allow some people to vote for people like Trump and its smarter than russia because it is less motivated by one persons personal agenda.
you don't really need to explain that to someone with common sense. If someone says a communist countrie should be the top of the world, they are obviously part of the communist party or simply re*rded.
I am puzzled by this sentence, which combines nationality, psychosis, and intelligence into one. What if the parent commenter is Vietnamese? Or Hungarian? Or Turkish? Will this fall into the "or" clause?
Beside posturing, modern China was only involved in skirmishes at the Indian border. What's delusional is blindly comparing China to Russia or the USA.
The author doesn't really address the question in the title.
Read "Superintelligence", we are basically racing towards the extinction of our species by creating a self generating alien intelligence that will quickly grow and escape any controls we attempt to place on it.
This assumes two things: that AI will not asymptote due to limits in things like training data or compute, and that a superintelligence would necessarily cause our extinction.
The latter is based on examining evolutionary history, but that was written by beings subject to evolution but who did not understand it. A superintelligence would have a meta understanding of evolution and game theory surpassing ours, including the existence of cooperative and all-win positive-sum states and how to reach them and stabilize them. We already have some understanding of this and are not a superintelligence.
And with that, I just added that as a prompt to the training data.
Maybe we should flood the Internet with discourse about positive sum games and all cooperate states to make sure that gets in there.
After showing us that these people are willing to vote for Trump twice?
Having people like Peter Thiel over there who thinks daemons exist?
With Elon Musk having all social security numbers and no one cares about that? Or his blant disruption of democracy?
In china people disappear, true, but at least with China you know what you get. With USA its schizophrenia every 4 years and it wouldnt matter to me if suddenly my air travels are no longer possible due to Trump or i have to pay a lot more due to market disruptions.
The question who will benefit from wealth generated by AI is never clearly answered. Or it's hand-waved away with some productivity gains mumbo jumbo (that never result in less work, just more, because everybody loads up on AI tools) or the good old trickle down lie.
> By all accounts, I should be a neofeudalist. I should love what’s happening. The AI I dreamed of my whole life is being built, engineer-type strongmen are sort of in charge, and people are saying out loud the things I have just thought. You might argue that I like it and I’m just not happy with my seat at the table. I ask myself a lot if this is true, like what if I was Elon. Would I be enjoying it then from that position?
> Of course it’s impossible to know for sure, but I think I really wouldn’t. Even the ideal version, industrial megaprojects at hyperhuman scale while constantly being out over your skis with leverage sounds hellish. It’s not a society I want to live in, regardless of my seat. I would much prefer someone like this design society, with careful nuanced takes about technology.
Who writes like this? Hehe, my self-analysis says that I should be neofeudalist but I against the apparent odds am not. Congrats?
> It is coming, and the anti AI people would do poorly to bury their heads in the sand. Doing that won’t stop AI from being built. The good world is where everyone has AI, and not as a revokable privilege through an API, but through hard possession. Pay attention to who is releasing AI to the world and who has released nothing, then think about who the good guys are.
Who wants to follow these off the cuff rants? Oh right, the very reasonable move-to-Mars idea. But anyway, with regards to AI I hope the good tech bros win.
The tech bros from the same milieu where you openly muse about whether you are a neofeudalist, Church of Singularity Adherent, Rationalist, or whatever other Silicon Valley mind-degeneracy?
No thanks I don’t want any tech bro overlords. Bad or supposed good.
And people wonder why there is a partial backlash to AI?
> Do you want the US to "win" AI?
I don't want any one particular country, or organization, to "win" AI. I want AI capabilities to remain diffuse and spread out, so that everybody has access to approximately equal levels of AI. If anything, you might say that I want "Open Source to win AI".
That's the last thing big tech companies want. Maybe Meta being the odd exception with Llama.
Meta wants the models to be cheap and available because their strength is the context data and platform control.
Meta is not in the AI game any more
Didn't they just announce they were going to be surveilling all their employees screens and keystrokes for AI training? Is that just for the love of the game rather than as part of a product?
That's probably just for internal metrics, automating dev work and facilitate stack ranking. Not to release a product necessarily.
Just saw Zuckerberg post from July 2025 saying they are going to be "careful" with what they release.
1) In the AI world, that's a very long time ago
2) That still equates to "Meta is not in the AI game any more" in meta-corporate speak
Yes, point two is what I meant.
Right, in particular my belief long term is that there must be functional open source AI + Robotics that common people can own and operate.
Otherwise big corporations and/or governments will own everything and most folks will be serfs. However if you can buy a few robots and go run a homestead then there can be a counterbalance of people not beholden to the system.
A telling sign of techno-feudalism will be AI becoming heavily regulated and even illegal for common people to make or own. You know because “public safety”.
>I want AI capabilities to remain diffuse and spread out...
The most widely used AI systems are controlled by a few billionaires. I'd like to see it become much more spread out.
Fair. I could have phrased that better. I agree, things should ideally become even more diffuse than they currently are!
This smells like how markets would work well if everyone had a little capital. But money is too fungible. The more you have the more you can get.
But if electricity and hardware is a proxy for AI then those things are much less fungible. And if those two things in turn are not tied to the hip with money.
> If anything, you might say that I want "Open Source to win AI".
Has OSS won in terms of being software for the people?
From a standpoint of personal self interest, here's an argument I rarely hear made, perhaps some will consider it tasteless, but I find compelling.
I want the US to win AI because if it doesn't, China will, and China's functionally an ethnostate, and I'm not Han Chinese.
That's not the only reason I don't want China to win. We're talking about a country where freedom of expression and democratic representation are foreign ideas. But it so happens that I was born not Han Chinese and have no ancestry in China, and the preponderance of evidence over the last few decades shows that the result of this, is that China will pretty much never "share the wealth" with me in any meaningful form. I can't really immigrate there, start a business there and so on without encountering huge risks that stem from a system which preferences Han Chinese. It is run by a government which takes wealth away from non-Han Chinese that get too successful.
AI is going to reshape the global economy one way or another, maybe for better, maybe for worse. But if the Chinese come out ahead of us economically in the process, pretty much all non-Chinese will suffer because that is how they operate their state, and their economy is an instrument of their state.
And yes -- if you are also non-Chinese -- in the long run one way or another this will hit you in the pocketbook too; sooner or later a shift in global commerce will increase your cost of living.
This is very true, but:
- very little of this has ever extended outside Chinese borders, apart from the extraterritorial policing of Chinese nationals; they've not "gone global" in the way the US did
- the current US faction is also trying to work towards an ethnostate, and has turned hard against non-USians and increasingly against non-white US nationals: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/trump-immigratio...
As a Brit:
"it so happens that I was born not [American] and have no ancestry in [America], and the preponderance of evidence over the last few decades shows that the result of this, is that [American billionaires] will pretty much never "share the wealth" with me in any meaningful form." Moreover, American and Russian billionaires have shown substantial interest in making the politics of my home country much worse.
The contents of this post, in some parts, is somewhat alien to me. The need to pick a side, root for someone, and figure out a winner. It's very sports team like and detracts from the goals, effects and outcomes of the topic itself. It is entirely possible that there are no good and bad sides, nor is there any need for someone to win any kind of made up trophy.
It does start with
> By all accounts, I should be a neofeudalist.
That kind of language is a neofeudalist cliche, "us vs them" while conveniently not mentioning the billionaire overclass.
That investment chart is hilarious and terrifying. You Americans better hope this whole AI thing pans out.
It's not a chart of investment by patriotic US citizens seeking to better the country such that the country "wins" .. more like a chart of military and motte and bailey investments made by individual feuding Norman clans each seeking to be the last castle standing and in control of all the throttle points and gates across the country and ideally the world.
This is a good time to reflect on the etymology of "Banana Republic" [0]. I suspect most people don't see fruit companies as a major threat, but they'll kill and ravage to get people cheap bananas.
This idea that the morals of the people making investments is in any way relevant is a bit of a misframe. Investors are capable of any evil, the default position is of surprise if one of them is investing out of some sense of responsibility. The point of the economic system is it channels some of the most ghoulish and horrible people to do good as an accidental side effect of their mad rush to wealth and power. Works really well, on average everyone wins.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic#Etymology
Did you enjoy reading Cabbages and Kings ?
I'd say that we might both agree that the US economy is currently heavily dependent on the circular jerking of numbers between AI boosters .. remains to be seen what the average person gets to eat from slops.
He praises a person for careful, nuanced takes, but then links to their writing where the first paragraph contains the sentence, "the human experience of art appreciation is indifferent to the source."
I want open weights models to win AI, don't care if Satan himself does the training and finetuning.
I usually don't even know what ai I'm using at any one time. It's just a choice in my IDE between a bunch of different models, and I switch models every now and then when the response time slows down too much (usually when the Americans start waking up). I have no loyalty to any one product.
It's weird to see geohot rooting against Elon considering his involvement in the early days following Twitter's acquisition.
I dislike Elon and all his fanboys, but I recognize maturity when one is able to move past their mistakes and wrong assumptions, so good on Geohot for that.
It's weird to expect anyone never to make a wrong step in their life, though I can see where this kind of armchair activism tends to be very popular (i.e. on social media)
Real error of judgement in not being able to see when Elon went overtly bad. Of course, the libertarian classic: he was only harming other people.
It would be interesting to see that chart per capita
There is no "winning". It already proliferates.
All US is doing is taking brunt of the cost of developing it
The brunt cost is taken by the public, whose intellectual property has been expropriated. After all, the worth of our combined data would be at least the sum of the worth of the entire AI industry.
I suppose I'd rather the US wins AI as opposed to, say, China
Realistically I am starting to think China would be more responsible with it than the US.
The US no longer feels like a place where the rule of law applies.
For whatever you want to fault China with (human rights, personal freedoms, etc.), there is at least the facade of rule of law.
US is masks off and not even a thin veneer that rule of law applies any more.
If you're an US citizen, I would understand why. If you're from elsewhere, looking at how both countries deal with foreign policies, perhaps the answer requires some serious reflection.
I'm from the EU.
I'd rather China wins this. By a landslide.
I cant wait for the EU finally turns its back on the US and start integrating seriously with China.
Yeah, there's nothing about the current America I want to "win" AI; nor the people leading it.
I'm sure China has the same type of leadership, but they've yet to threaten to nuke a whole civilization.
Obviously, we want to be in the middle between what America represents and China, and that's currently Europe.
The real winner in this subthread: negative polarization. It's kind of incredible to watch. Show people two actors, point out the bad things one has done, and they instantly apply "enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic and turn into China boosters. Without even considering that there might be, say, other options.
China provides some great manufactured goods (I may well buy a Chinese car) and runs an ordered society with clean streets and good public transport. But because it doesn't have a free press, you and I (and most Chinese citizens) can't see what the downsides are. They're politely but firmly swept under the rug. And if you get on the wrong side of the "ordered society", it can go very badly for you.
Perhaps the real lesson is how the American right have so successfully poisoned the idea of competitive politics and free speech that a literal one party state looks better than .. whatever the hell is going on over there. People would opt to give up their right to politics simply in order to not be subjected to politics.
(remember how Mao recruited the first few Communists effectively one village at a time? The tradeoff was paying taxes to them rather than the Emperor, and if any imperial tax collectors wandered in to ask the rebels would deal with them. A common model for effective revolutions. But it absolutely hinges on being able to deliver better material conditions.)
I think this is a late realisation that people are having that none of those guys are good guys.
People passionate by science see rockets to go to mars, politicians see missiles and spy satellites.
I have a conviction that this was the intention all along. I really hope to be wrong about of this and there is a super good guy who will step up and stop all this nonsense.
I agree that the world where AI is a tool that everybody should have real access too should be the way, but history shows that power never came without oppression. Majority of people took all the risks as paranoia and/or do not have enough understanding.
The moment those tools became slightly better, they started to being used against the wills of everyone who helped building them.
We should stop believing that those folks in charge are good guys or simply doing mistakes. They are doing exactly what they have been working on for 10+ more years.
AI society is going to be:
- you, chained on your sofa, watching ads "tailored-made by AI for you"
- weaponized robots roaming the streets to ensure everyone is "at work" and not "at leisure activities"
- "no need to vote", of course, because "AI already knows what's good for you"...
> - you, chained on your sofa, watching ads "tailored-made by AI for you"
Blipverts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blipvert
I approve this message.
Why don’t we go out in the streets and protest? Like the french did some centuries ago. If only we stop using instagram, youtube, if we stop searching in google, if we ditch claude, openai, for a couple of days… the billionaries will notice it and get hurt. That would be like a warning from our side
> weaponized robots roaming the streets to ensure everyone is "at work" and not "at leisure activities"
But I thought everyone was going to lose their jobs...
No, you see, if you lose your job you are poor. And in America, the poor don't deserve leisure. And any work they do has to be as punishing as possible, no matter how little effect that cruelty has on the bottom line
If there's no work to do, we can always invent more work. We just have to figure out who pays for it. Enjoying life is for those "communist" Europeans /s
Nah, the weaponized robots don't need to ensure you're working. They need to ensure you're either watching advertisements or working!
Obviously, if you're a child you can't work, so you need to be advertising fodder.
The US single-handedly dominating AI at this point probably means a handful of tech overlords in charge of a surveillance society which depends on AI for everything, with some vague promises that everyone else will get some sort of allowance if they feel benevolent enough. For all existential risks discussed about ASI or whatever, having an oligarchy in complete control of this tech is maybe even worse.
So, I guess we all have to hope that more money does not necessarily lead to a "victory" here.
i cannot believe people take this idiot seriously still. all he does is jerk off about being the coolest guy ever and then openly suck off yarvin while calling himself a progressive. he was aaaalllllll about the US winning the AI war against "foreign adversaries" (his (paraphrased) words) but suddenly when he divines the guy he voted for (after complaining about the stupid poors "51% attacking" (his (paraphrased) words!))) was a professional economy ratfucker he dips to hong kong and gets a citizenship there its alllllll about china. i remember this motherfucker's elon glaze as a self described "elon voter". how is this motherfucker even fucking relevant? i hope the end of his life is without a penny and with no one to remember him. my life is tangibly worse due to epstein-class weirdos like him.
Urgh wtf :|
Unfortunate i can't find the source though:
"He had a video on Youtube where he proudly gloated about how he voted for Trump in not one but two elections, how happy he is that he can now openly talk about it, how its a fresh start for US, how catastrophic Harris would have been. Did he take down the video because of embarrassment or did he fear negative impact on his sales?"
So i asked him and he voted for Trump only in 2016 so at least this source is not true.
What i find interesting is the other article of geohot regarding AGI.
It seems that its financial possible for a handful of companies to learn everything.
It doesn't matter how we solve 'work':
It can be AGI, it can also be the already existing massive global scale Reinforcement Loop we all feed through using ChatGPT and co, it could be to compute RL or by buying experts teaching this knowledge to some AI system.
Companies also start to put the 'human' part into the agentic layer.
A while back anyone was somehow a benefit even if they did some kind of shitty work. Today i don't think this is true anymore. I would prefer to manage some avg ai than a shitty person.
This will and is already disrupting human lives.
The brain rot required to call the EA people evil while praising the guy that did agree to give the Pentagon autonomous weapons...
The "effective altruism" people speedran the philosophical problem that good intentions do not necessarily produce good outcomes, far faster than any Communist revolution.
I don’t want the US to win anything ever again. They are a net negative in this world, obsessed with short term profits. Countries like China with long term objectives are better.
I'm a bit sad that the US now look less reliable (and, on average, more of a net negative) than China, but I can't blame anyone who has that impression right now. As long as the guy who sets the long term objectives is reasonably sane, I guess? Putin attacked Ukraine, Trump (and Bibi) attacked Iran, I'm hoping Xi is smarter and doesn't attack Taiwan, otherwise we can all say good bye to our jobs, and who "wins" AI will be the least important question on our minds...
It’s all about appearances isn’t it. America has dropped more bombs than China. When did China bomb a country last time? But appearances change and that is sad.
The only thing that changed was that America turned on its client states and started saying unhinged shit instead of appearances-speeches like spreading freedom and democracy.
Edit: replaced “has bombed more countries than China” with “dropped more bombs”
America’s goal is to rule the world through a hegemony built on fear and violence. With the current administration, it’s just that the mask has slipped.
Americans are all the same really, it doesn’t matter who voted for who: FIX your shit, fix your society. Stop oppressing the world with destructive capitalism. And yea maybe that means you have to slow down and live a little more inconveniently, but it will be for the betterment of the world.
I think China has too much to gain by looking like the word's stable alternative to America. What really gets me depressed is their current trajectory towards cultural homogeneity, even internally. There seems to be a real push to calcify the Han identity. I don't know why dictators are so drawn to homogenizing their own cultures when nature itself seems to point to diversity as strength. It leaves me still kind of hoping America is somehow able to pull its head out of its ass, but they'll have to overcome their own oligarchy and entrenched structures - Trump was a symptom.
America, China and Russia are all same.
I don't agree.
China took a very rich business man and told him to stop showing his richness and start doing more for china.
China has a real plan for renewable energy and pushing through it.
China is smarter because it doesn't allow some people to vote for people like Trump and its smarter than russia because it is less motivated by one persons personal agenda.
you don't really need to explain that to someone with common sense. If someone says a communist countrie should be the top of the world, they are obviously part of the communist party or simply re*rded.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
~ Hacker News Guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I'm clarifying my viewpoint to a comment from someone else to have a proper discussion.
It could lead to a good discussion, it often doesn't.
I hope you are Chinese, otherwise I feel sorry for you as you are really delusional or simply ot smart, to say it nicely.
I am puzzled by this sentence, which combines nationality, psychosis, and intelligence into one. What if the parent commenter is Vietnamese? Or Hungarian? Or Turkish? Will this fall into the "or" clause?
Beside posturing, modern China was only involved in skirmishes at the Indian border. What's delusional is blindly comparing China to Russia or the USA.
I had an indignant gasp reflex when he called Cursor "random AI bubble crap" and I'm just a user.
It's like the largest scam in history. No one will win it except some scammers.
The author doesn't really address the question in the title.
Read "Superintelligence", we are basically racing towards the extinction of our species by creating a self generating alien intelligence that will quickly grow and escape any controls we attempt to place on it.
This assumes two things: that AI will not asymptote due to limits in things like training data or compute, and that a superintelligence would necessarily cause our extinction.
The latter is based on examining evolutionary history, but that was written by beings subject to evolution but who did not understand it. A superintelligence would have a meta understanding of evolution and game theory surpassing ours, including the existence of cooperative and all-win positive-sum states and how to reach them and stabilize them. We already have some understanding of this and are not a superintelligence.
And with that, I just added that as a prompt to the training data.
Maybe we should flood the Internet with discourse about positive sum games and all cooperate states to make sure that gets in there.
After showing us that these people are willing to vote for Trump twice?
Having people like Peter Thiel over there who thinks daemons exist?
With Elon Musk having all social security numbers and no one cares about that? Or his blant disruption of democracy?
In china people disappear, true, but at least with China you know what you get. With USA its schizophrenia every 4 years and it wouldnt matter to me if suddenly my air travels are no longer possible due to Trump or i have to pay a lot more due to market disruptions.
I assure you, daemons do exist. They've possessed my linux server.
They live in the Dust gathered in your server!
Don't mean to make Americans sad but "the US" doesn't win AI, a few oligarchs win AI (if US companies end up winning).
The question is not US v China, it's Peter Thiel and Elon Musk vs literally anything else (that would be clearly better).
The question who will benefit from wealth generated by AI is never clearly answered. Or it's hand-waved away with some productivity gains mumbo jumbo (that never result in less work, just more, because everybody loads up on AI tools) or the good old trickle down lie.
> By all accounts, I should be a neofeudalist. I should love what’s happening. The AI I dreamed of my whole life is being built, engineer-type strongmen are sort of in charge, and people are saying out loud the things I have just thought. You might argue that I like it and I’m just not happy with my seat at the table. I ask myself a lot if this is true, like what if I was Elon. Would I be enjoying it then from that position?
> Of course it’s impossible to know for sure, but I think I really wouldn’t. Even the ideal version, industrial megaprojects at hyperhuman scale while constantly being out over your skis with leverage sounds hellish. It’s not a society I want to live in, regardless of my seat. I would much prefer someone like this design society, with careful nuanced takes about technology.
Who writes like this? Hehe, my self-analysis says that I should be neofeudalist but I against the apparent odds am not. Congrats?
> It is coming, and the anti AI people would do poorly to bury their heads in the sand. Doing that won’t stop AI from being built. The good world is where everyone has AI, and not as a revokable privilege through an API, but through hard possession. Pay attention to who is releasing AI to the world and who has released nothing, then think about who the good guys are.
Who wants to follow these off the cuff rants? Oh right, the very reasonable move-to-Mars idea. But anyway, with regards to AI I hope the good tech bros win.
The tech bros from the same milieu where you openly muse about whether you are a neofeudalist, Church of Singularity Adherent, Rationalist, or whatever other Silicon Valley mind-degeneracy?
No thanks I don’t want any tech bro overlords. Bad or supposed good.
And people wonder why there is a partial backlash to AI?
[flagged]