That is what happens when your mode of analysis is closer to erotic Harry Potter fan fiction (which is indeed the medium in which Yudkowsky has delivered some of his prognostications)
I was going to throw a point of order about not all fanfic being erotic, but given how they fetishize "intelligence" and "rationality" I can't be sure that they don't get off on that slog.
There's gotta be a pithy way of talking about this. I propose "Phantom Funds" - money that investors and analysts expect to be there that ends up not existing when the cards are turned over.
Why yes this does largely boil down to fraud but without the legal consequences.
Is it though? Like, theres missing detail about the request to publish their talking points in addition to the original reporting, but it's a pretty fair description of the original reporting at issue. That's pretty solid as far as headlines go.
It's such a powerful dodge. What you're actually saying is "we're going to keep doing exactly what we're doing and see if that fixes it" because the nature of innovation is such that it's actually pretty complex to "invest" in, and very rarely has the direct application you need. Like, you don't get penicillin by investing in pharmaceutical innovation you get it by paying some nerd to fuck off to the jungle for a few years and hope that his special interest ends up being useful. Bell Labs was able to basically invent the modern world by funneling the profits of their massive monopolistic empire into ~~a bunch of nerds poking stuff with probes to see what happens~~ elementary physics and materials science research that didn't have a definite objective.
I've heard worse ideas. It's funny; I would have expected the people who were in tech because it looked like the best bet for a relatively stable in-demand career would have been the ones who were crap at it relative to the folks doing it purely for love of the game. But it turns out that having something else going on is closely linked to touching grass in ways that make you harder to lure into the cult.
Yeah, I probably should have included a warning about incoming psychic damage on that link. Sorry.
Although highlighting the phrase "intelligence displacement" construct dies illuminate that the whole case they make is built on the same foundations as that other Rat fixation: eugenics and race science! Like, I'm not saying the author is definitely a eugenicist breaking out the skull calipers, but their argument is based on the same idea of what "intelligence" is in the first place. It's a distinct commodity that is produced or contained in certain minds and is the ultimate source of the value that they create. If you're a "knowledge worker" you don't provide a specific perspective, experience, expertise, or even knowledge, you just plug your intelligence into the organization like connecting a new processor bank to a server farm. Because it's disconnected from a person's individuality and subjectivity we can model it effectively as a commodity and look to optimize its production, either by automating away the squishy human element with ai or by increasing the productivity of current methods by optimizing for the ~~white~~ "right" kind of person.
I can see a situation where his bombing campaign fails to achieve the objective, a special operation like in Venezuela fails, and Hegseth or Rubio or someone (Putin? Netanyahu? Kanye?) convinces him to invade long enough that inertia carries it forward.
Of course, anything we do is going to take us to the same result we've seen with all these interventions. The US military and whatever allies join us will be, broadly speaking, terrifyingly effective at achieving their tactical and operational goals, but because the overall strategic plan is somewhere between non-existent and backwards those successes will fail to actually do anything. We will inflict and suffer that much more death and devastation, and all it will accomplish is making the world less stable and less safe for everyone.
It's a pretty wild read. This isn't a rational doomer screed about the annihilation of life on earth, though it similarly bounces radically between being overly vague and overly specific to create the appearance of analyjsis and consideration and confuse when it's claiming a fact with when it's extrapolating a trend (hint: it's almost always the latter and the trend may or may not be real). Instead it's written firmly for the McKinsey set to convince them their bets on the AI future weren't dumb and actually it's the naysayers who will lose their jobs and homes. Also David might need to update his site because there's an offhanded reverse-pivot back into crypto.
I think there's definitely something to that. It seems like it rhymes with my own interpretation, at least. I did 7 years of support for backend network infrastructure (load balancing, SSL optimization, etc) and one thing that I consistently found was that the way the applications and tech services at most of these companies were structured everything was treated like a complete black box by everyone who wasn't specifically working on that element. Like, I would find myself trying to trace a problem through the application flow and every other request was essentially being handled by a completely different team and the people I was talking to didn't even understand the questions I was asking. That level of siloed work is somewhat necessary given the sheer complexity of the systems and infrastructure that modern applications rely on, but also seems to cultivate a certain level of incuriousity. What's happening inside those black boxes doesn't even get considered because it doesn't matter; it's somebody else's problem right up until it suddenly isn't. The current crop of confabulation machines take this tendency to a kind of logical extreme where nobody can adequately look into the black box to understand what it's doing, and that will similarly be perfectly fine up until it very much isn't and there won't be anyone to call to figure out how to fix it.
From the outside? I'm gonna be honest and say I don't know that you do.
A computer that both does what you don't tell it to do and doesn't do what you tell it to do. I didn't think we could do it but - I tell you what - it's been done.
God that was bleak - I thought Nick was bad in his guest spots on Alex's show (seen via Knowledge Fight, of course) but apparently you really do need at least two layers of insulating podcast to avoid suffering critical psychic damage from that level of hatred. I appreciated the acknowledgement that in order to feel at all okay playing clips you needed to sanewash him a little bit. I'm pretty sure that JorDan do the same thing with Alex and don't acknowledge it nearly often enough.
I also feel like some of Nick's schtick is about trying to position himself and maintain his position in the right wing grifter bigot-industrial complex. Like, the open disdain for his audience and presenting his actually pretty straightforward feelings on the halftime show as somehow brave and iconoclastic is also about differentiating himself and making his audience feel superior to Alex, Tucker, Candace, etc. In that sense the open disdain for the audience serves another purpose in terms of reinforcing heirarchy. Look at how great it feels for me to be better than you. And even you are better than the chuds, who are better than the racialized other.