Blockchains. Why is this report even mentioning blockchains? Who cares about enterprise blockchain in 2025?
Could be an LLM thing, I noticed they still churn out stuff about blockchain when generating PRDs with a future proofing section, at about the same time I noticed management had okayed using chatgpt to write product specifications.
I saw this today so now you must too:
Or how all the pronatalist events they frequent seem to be accidentally crawling with scientific racists and great replacement types.
If anything they might be trying to pull a motte-and-bailey by claiming they are not technically eugenicists, just normal far right weirdoes with a pronounced interest in lineages and IQ, a combination that famously never led to anything bad happening once it entered the mainstream.
When Yud did that multi-hour youtube interview around a couple years ago someone in the comments called him the Neil Breen of AI.
It may not be what humanity needs, but it's what it deserves.
I don't think it's even illegal to watch R-rated movies as a minor, it's more of a guideline for your caretakers.
That has drawn accusations of eugenics, which Malcolm strenuously denies.
Not that we're going to tell you what the accusations were about, we're serious reporters after all, we'll just take Egghead Jr's word for it.
I could definitely see Rationalist Battlefiled Earth becoming a sensation, just not in the way they hope it does.
That github copilot has a pls don't be obvious about stealing shit flag in the settings will never not be endlessly amusing to me.
Does it work? Who knows!
Lasker himself is known to go by a pseudonym with a transphobic slur in it.
That the TPO moniker is basically ungoogleable appears to have been a happy accident for him, according to that article by Rachel Adjogah his early posting history paints him as an honest-to-god chaser.
So if you knew the average lawyer made 3.6 mistakes per case and the AI only made 1.2, it’s still a net gain.
thats-not-how-any-of-this-works.webm
I completely missed that, thanks.
Yeah, he's a very non provably non-nefarious well meaning guy who thinks Richard Lynn is on the money, cites Cremieux on the subject and platforms Emil Kirkegaard et al in the comments while giving money to aporia, and who will never shut up about IQ heritability, ever.
And it's not like he outright admits his article that misrepresents the data this way started out as marketing material for one of those companies, or that he picked this company because he liked the cut of Jonathan Anomaly's jib.
Edit: also, not taking your basic intuition and running with it is supposed to be the whole entire point of so-called rationalism, so what the shit?
I guess the traffic he gets from being on good enough terms with Scott to be occasionally cited as the opposing viewpoint must be worth it to him.