DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
Tell me about it.
User ID: 745
I do think I am far smarter than you, to the extent that you are incapable of modeling my thoughts.
What? How is that a "vs"? That was a national manhunt, the EU Parliament almost had a minute of silence for said father of 2. If the killer can be traced to 4chan, and with OwO shit he almost certainly will be, the blood in the visceral video is also on their hands. I am not proposing some far-fetched guilt by association here, this is imageboard slang, and people were getting ready to obliterate trans rights when it was suggested that casings have some "trans" stuff, why do you think another guilty group would suffer less ire?
A market where the stronger party selects whom it gets to compete with is not a very good market for evolving ideas. I am a snob but I'm a snob from 2ch, a cognitive elitist, opposed to self-appointed aristocracy. Compete on an open field with whoever is strong and willing to fight, live by the dunk, die by the dunk (which is why it's inappropriate that he literally died by a bullet from a hidden assassin, a total violation of the spirit). I like Fuentes more because he and his groypers invaded his debates and disrupted Kirk's silly scheme with even more insidious gotchas, and made deserved gains on it.
will be very unfortunate for Fuentes if it was one of his more mentally ill followers.
I admit I expected to get modded on moderately unfair grounds when I scrolled to this username, a nice surprise
Until very recently, top of the line iPhones were totally getting more expensive. And iPhone is not the luxury phone any more, that's more like some overengineered thi-fold Huawei (to be matched by a folding iPhone when it comes out). But fair, iPhone index is worse than Big Mac index and if we want to study premium consumption, we need something else.
"OwO notices bulge what's this" is a gay 4chan joke, nothing to do with trans, it's more femboy-coded if anything but first of all anonymous imageboard coded. I'll spare the inane details because the truly funny thing here is that 4chan "investigation" pinning this on some random weird transgender went viral, and that was fueled in large part by initial reports of "trans" messages on casings. This can be spun into "radical far right killer 4chan tried to pin the blame on trans", and to an extent it will be. This is such a disaster.
It's not an illusion due to the stock bubble, Europeans are poorer and only now starting to dimly appreciate how much poorer. But Conrad Bastable had a good blog post on this back in 2020. Unequal Growth: The Zero-Sum Games You Don’t See. Since then, everything became even more grotesque. I strongly recommend reading.
This essay began with one observation: In the first decade of the 2000s, the top 2 nations generated 31% of all the Economic Growth. In the next decade, their share double to 60% of Global Economic Growth. Growth is now a 2-player game.
……… The only escape is to grow faster than the median. Salary, investments, wages, bonuses, stock options, etc. etc. Whatever it takes. If you can grow faster than the average person, you’ll grow your personal Wealth quicker than the costs of these mandatory purchases are being raised.
That’s the only path to individual Wealth.
But the lesson applies at the national level too. Grow faster than the median or cost disease will eat your Wealth.
The first iPhone launched in mid-2007. You think Apple is going to lower prices in foreign markets just because those markets aren’t growing?
Don’t be silly. This chart applies all through your economy, for consumer and industrial goods alike.
Sure, there’s a bottom-tier product that exists to capture the revenue potential of whoever exists at the bottom of the market. But the top-tier product, the new technology, the new release, will continue to be priced under the assumption that those who purchase it are growing.
“Just economize, silly, nobody needs the newest iPhone” — yeah, I agree, I’m still using my 2016 model #pleb. But there’s a huge middle class in Japan and Europe that expects to have a certain purchasing power. A certain economic relevance. They’ve had it for 60+ years in most cases.
One imagines that feeling it slip away is a painful experience.
………
Conclusion
If United States GDP shrinks by $264B, while German GDP shrinks by $332B, as happened in 2009, both nations are hurting.
And Germany clearly hurts more — $68B more on an absolute basis, and by a greater percentage of its 2008 GDP. That difference widens the gap between the two nations.
But if the United States GDP grows by $2.5 Trillion while German GDP grows by $0.5 Trillion, as happened from 2016-2018, the gap between the productive capacity of the two nations widens by ~$2 Trillion.
Relative to the United States, Germany perhaps performed better in 2009 than 2016-2018.
Rationalists will be quick to point out that this is an unreasonable lens, as rational human actors should rather increase their personal income by $[X] even if their neighbour’s income increases by $[2X], than see their own income decrease by $[Y]. Assuming prices are static, I agree wholeheartedly.
But the lesson of Considerations on Cost Disease, The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth, and The Uncharity of College is that prices for the most important purchases will rise to consume most of the increased Wealth a society generates.
Globalization means the societal reference frame for many prices now becomes [the Most Productive society on Earth].
US GDP growth isn’t going to skyrocket your local rents in Germany (although Chinese GDP growth does appear to impact rents in Vancouver), but some of your favourite consumer goods will be priced according to US growth expectations.
You can grow or not grow, but that new iPhone will cost more regardless.
But "the morality of a child" is, I think, putting it too kindly. Kirk was not a child, he was a cynical propagandist in the job of training unprincipled partisans, ever changing his tune precisely in alignment with the party line and President's whimsy (see the pivot on H1Bs). I admit I despised him and his little, annoying gotcha act of "debating" infantile leftists, milking them for dunk opportunities. They deserved the humiliation, but the pretense of "promoting dialogue" was completely hollow, and the massive number of shallow, cow-like people in the US for whom it is convincing depresses me. I find his more resolute enemies still significantly more repulsive, and more so now that they're libeling him with absurd exaggerations of his less liberal views and gloating about a callous murder (of a man who was quite aware that political violence is a risk in his line of work, yet did public appearances; so at least in bravery quite deserving). But it is what it is. It's the morality of a soldier. You want to be a soldier in a culture war, because it's easier this way. Soldiers are obligated to suspend most of their moral judgement that is not directly instrumental to following orders, and this makes things so much easier.
Kirk was recruiting soldiers. He didn't care about Israeli victims of Oct 7, he cared that Israel is Our Greatest Ally (according to the President and GOP consensus; he started calibrating this message to go with the times recently). Kirk certainly didn't care about civilians in Gaza and anywhere else. He wasn't very sharp, but I think he understood well that a war with a just cause is not necessarily a just war, that even a just war can be fought by unjust people and with unjust methods. That it is possible for "good guys" to turn into "bad guys" depending on how they act in pursuit of their alleged goodness, and that remaining marginally better guys on the balance of evidence can still be not good enough to justify participating in a race to the bottom.
I much prefer the types of Fuentes or, better yet, Sam "Hitler's Top Guy" Hyde to those disingenuous establishment figures who pollute the commons with fake debate, fake intellectual engagement, fake morality. Kirk, PragerU, Bari Weiss stuff, it's all such fraud. Better yet have some beliefs and openly say what you mean. Even if you don't seek debate, it at least becomes possible in theory.
P.S. mild suspicion of Hlynka resurgence
The tyrant’s dream is to stop things from changing, since for him any change can only be for the worse—in the same way that, for a man atop a pyramid, moving in any direction means going downward.
This is just narrative. What things? Changing how?
It is worth noting that during Xi's reign China has changed a lot. Not in all ways for the better, but that's covered enough. They've become a high-trust society, in many respects higher-trust than the modern West. (So now we have pathetic protestations of things like safety in the streets or general politeness not counting, because it's compelled or whatever). They've doubled energy production per capita (the US has fallen a bit, while say the non-dictatorial UK has fallen off a cliff by 30% and is now far below China). They've transitioned from makers of slippers and "plastic crap" with a pathetically corrupt and infiltrated military and government to a technological superpower half a step behind the US and spooking the US into an increasingly undignified retreat from the Eastern Hemisphere. The list can go endlessly, it's arguably the most staggering timeline of national ascendance since the Industrial Revolution (if mostly by virtue of absolute scale), and of course it can be said that none of that is Xi's achievement, but he sure was well equipped to arrest those and other changes. He, however ineptly, struggled to accelerate them. Wouldn't it be easier to rule over impoverished peasants? Well, probably not. Chinese peasants sometimes used to decide they've had enough, successfully kill their emperors and usurp their thrones. "Lost the Mandate" and all that. Stupid slavish bugmen.
Taking it charitably, we know Xi was interested in Eastern mysticism and would likely love to be an Immortal Emperor. He also would opt to keep stagnant things he genuinely believes are good enough already: the "Democratic Centralism" and other buzzwords for the mechanics of the One-Party State he is lording over. That would necessitate stagnation and repression in significant aspects of culture and society, which we observe. But I'm not convinced a single immortal guy would achieve that better than an ever-regenerating hydra of government and quasi-government actors. Is there some cabal of ancient vampires maintaining American Civil Rights regime? No, they seem to keep recruiting. The Party, as O'Brien taught us, can be immortal even if the individual cell is frail. I think that's the core tragedy of our species – we have functional immortality for crude structures of power, often obfuscated in discourse by handwaving about "memes", but not for humans who, if they don't grow senile, can actually learn and acquire wisdom. Yeah, I think that even immortal dictators can be better than dictatorless dystopias, and it's too easy to build those.
Moreover, Xi said "in this century humans might be able to live to 150 years old". It sounds like he describes the opinion of scientists about the probable outlook for life extension technology, not some secret project he could realistically monopolize. Technology of this nature is, in general, hard to monopolize, and its very realization depends on scale.
I don't think we will see an immortal Ubermensch King in the East. Or at least, there will be a sizable class of lower-tier Immortals cultivating towards ascension – like in those Xianxia novels young Chinese read so much.
It's funny how you say "God-shaped hole", whereas it's clear you mean "immortality-shaped hole", for which God is the go-to plug. But it's much sillier than cryonics.
even if cryonics worked freezing yourself wouldn't save you from a bullet or a skydiving accident or anything else.
This is a very strange objection too. OK? How about not getting shot? Nothing is ever guaranteed but one can take reasonable precautions.
I do mostly mean LandSpace with Zhuque-2/3, and Space Epoch's Yuanxingzhe-1. Yes, I assume that these designs will be almost fully preserved in product version. They are better than Falcon-9 in that F9 is pretty old, and they're copying Starship as well. Methalox, steel body, more robust build (F9 diameter was limited by stupid American railroad/highway standard). This has the potential for rapid reusability and mass production. And you don't need to scale to Starship if you can scale to dozens of vehicles instead. I've heard that LandSpace may get facilities currently involved in metalworking for military aviation.
Long March 9,
I am completely jaded about the Long March program and it isn't factoring into my estimates. Robin Li was wise to insist on liberalizing the space market to enable those private efforts, they will determine Chinese ceiling.
I don't see much military use either, all that data will necessarily be related to Earth and they have a decent communication network as is. It might be an initial experiment for actual off-world datacenters, and also for processing signals collected by satellites themselves.
I think megalomaniacal projects are inherently collectivist, a National Pride thing. You can do that when you have some particular mixes of populism and optimistic technocracy, perhaps; or when you're an authoritarian quasi-fascist (by modern standards) state that doesn't feel the need to pander to felt mundane needs of the electorate and is able to sell random infrastructure as a cause for celebration. Britain these days sounds more like it might do a mega-housing project for immigrants, or a renovation of state surveillance grid. That can be sold as visionary, too.
So speaking of China, yeah they've got that in droves. What @roystgnr said about rocketry (I am more optimistic, their currently tested designs are innately better than Falcon 9 and may allow rapid scaling beyond Starships, though this might take 5+ years). They have started to assemble a distributed orbital supercomputer (again, bottlenecked by lift capacity). There's preliminary research into using Lunar lava tubes for habitats, with the goal of eventual settlement of the Moon once they have the means to deliver nontrivial mass. What @RandomRanger said about the big dam; for datacenters, I like that they have a project of national «public compute» grid to basically commoditize GPU cycles like electricity and tap water . They have this Great Green Wall project, planting a Germany-sized forest to arrest the spread of Gobi desert. They've done another one in Xinjiang already. Mostly it's trivial things at vast scale – like installing thousands of high-current EV chargers, solar everywhere etc. There's a lot going on.
I think Britain would be very much improved by something mundane like that instead of flashy awe-inspiring megaprojects. It impressed me today to find that this July, China has increased residential power consumption by 18% versus July of previous year. «Between 2019 and 2025, residential power consumption in the month of July rose by 138%». I can't readily find the equivalent stats for Britain, but energy use per capita has declined by 14% in the same period; incidentally China has overtaken the UK on per capita total energy use in 2019-2020 (you can click your way to apples-to-apples comparison). The decline in energy use is a very clear sign of British involution, and it wouldn't take that much, logistically speaking, to reverse – Brits are still rich enough, and they're small enough, to procure gas (Trump rejoices), and maybe some Rolls-Royce reactors, and reduce costs and raise quality of life. AC in the summer and ample heating in the winter would do wonders to make the island less dreadful.
When have the Democrats nationalized a private company?
Consider also that this is simply retarded. It's not Trump or Republicans who will own $INTC, it's the United States Government, and so in 3.5 years it'll likely be handed to "Democrats".
Well, State-Owned Enterprises are a feature of one notorious, nominally Communist state that the US is dedicated to beating, and this does look like a market-flavored convergent evolution in this direction, but no, I don't think it's theoretically leftist. It is of course statist and industrial-policy-pilled. Probably prudent; will allow the state to strongarm Intel into restructuring by TSMC executives, which seems to be the plan to save the beleaguered corporation.
Are there risks of corruption arising in the Trump administration
Oh yes.
This explains so much. When I said "We've had the same issue with Hlynka", I should have focused on this thought instead of getting triggered by the usual Hlynka rhetorics. In a sense, it's impressive how he did basically nothing to obfuscate his identity, exactly the same cocksure loquacity glossing over substantial flaws, and could rely on good faith alone.
Ahahaha, this explains so much. I was worried we've got another LLM skeptic with the exact same mix of bad takes.
This is a funny post but
OK, he won a fields medal. Neat. Someone wins one every year.
is literally wrong. «The Fields Medal is a prize awarded to two, three, or four mathematicians under 40 years of age at the International Congress of the International Mathematical Union (IMU), a meeting that takes place every four years». So at most one person wins it every year on average. This level of ignorance of the domain suggests you can't really have valuable intuitions about his merit.
There was an automatic suspension for «quotation marks» on /r/TheMotte already, near the end of its life cycle. But manual permaban on /r/slatestarcodex preceded that.
Nobody is firing professors yet. And no, they'll go to industry, not China. Might actually help with productivity.
but even if they remain aligned it's risky to outsource your brainpower and key industries, TSMC being the most obvious example.
At the end of the day this is all a massive, embarrassing bluff, a shit test. A bunch of true believer wokesters in the humanities, with lukewarm STEM intellectuals in tow, are pretending to be the irreplaceable brain of the United States, basically holding the nation hostage. Well, as Lenin said, «intelligentsia is not the brain of the nation, it's its shit», and for all the evils of the Soviet Union it did go to space, and failed through its retarded economic theory (endorsed by many among this very American intelligentsia, surprisingly), not Lenin's anti-meritocratic views.
This movement has, through manipulating procedural outcomes, appropriated funds for (garbage) research that gave their mediocre allies jobs and their commissars more institutional power, delegitimized (potentially very useful) research they didn't like, canceled White and "White-adjacent" academics they didn't like, created a hostile atmosphere and demoralized who knows how many people whose views or ethnicity they didn't like, and now they are supposed to have infinite immunity for their exploitation of the norms of academic freedom and selective enforcement of regulations, because they might throw a hissy fit. And they aren't even delivering! US universities have been rapidly losing their dominance for over a decade! Of top 10 academic institutions, 8 are Chinese already! (Here's a more rigorous, in my view, ranking from CWTS Leiden).
Come to think of it – as a distant echo of these folks' institutional dominance, even I've been permabanned from /r/slatestarcodex of all places, because I've been too discourteous commenting on Kevin Bird's successful cancellation of the "eugenicist" Stephen Hsu (Trace was there too, hah; gave me a stern talking to, shortly before the ban). Now Stephen Hsu is doomposting 24/7 that the US will get brutally folded by China on science, industry and technology. At worst, you might accelerate this by a few months.
It is known I don't like Trump. I don't respect Trump and Trumpism. But his enemies are also undeserving of respect, they are institutionalized terrorists (and many trace their political lineage to literal terrorists), and I can see where Americans are coming from when they say "no negotiation with terrorists". And even then, this is still a kind of negotiation. It's just the first time this academic cabal is facing anything more than a toothless reprimand. Let's see if they change their response in the face of this novel stimulus.
If anything, it is disappointing to me that this pendulum swing is not actually motivated by interest in truth or even by some self-respect among White Americans, it's a power grab by Trump's clique plus panic of Zionists like Bill Ackman who used to support and fund those very institutions with all their excesses and screeds about white supremacy – before they, like the proverbial golem, turned on Israel in the wake of 10/7. But if two wrongs don't make a right, the second wrong doesn't make the original one right either. I have no sympathy for the political culture of American academia, and I endorse calling their bluff.
And what would they do? Move to China, lol? They're too self-interested for that, and China censors even more things they'd be inclined to make noise about. Move to allied nations, maybe Australia in Tao's case? It's not such a strategic loss given their political alignment with the US. Just hate conservatives? Don't they already? If you're going to be hated, it's common sense that there's an advantage in also being feared and taken seriously. For now, they're not taking Trump and his allies seriously. A DEI enforcer on campus is a greater and more viscerally formidable authority. It will take certain costly signals to change that.
I think it's legitimate to treat them with disdain and disregard. Americans can afford it, and people who opportunistically accepted braindead woke narratives don't deserve much better treatment. The sanctity of folks like Tao is a strange notion. They themselves believe in equity more than in meritocracy.
One of the weird quirks of LLMs is that the more you increase the breadth of thier "knowledge"/training data the less competent they seem to become at specific tasks for a given amount of compute.
just pure denial of reality. Modern models for which we have an idea of their data are better at everything than models from 2 years ago. Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 (yes, a handful) is trained on like 25x as much data as llama-2-70B-instruct (36 trillion tokens vs 2, with a more efficient tokenizer and God knows how many RL samples, and you can't get 36 trillion tokens without scouring the furthest reaches of the web). What, specifically, is it worse at? Even if we consider inference efficiency (it's straightforwardly ≈70/3.3 times cheaper per output token), can you name a single use case on which it would do worse? Maybe "pretending to be llama 2".
With object level arguments like these, what need to discuss psychology.
There's an argument in favor of this bulverism: a reasonable suspicion of motivated reasoning does count as a Bayesian prior to also suspect the validity of that reasoning's conclusions. And indeed many AI maximalists will unashamedly admit their investment in AI being A Big Deal. For the utopians, it's a get-out-of-drudgery card, a ticket to the world of Science Fiction wonders and possibly immortality (within limits imposed by biology, technology and physics, which aren't clear on the lower end). For the doomers, cynically, it's a validation of their life's great quest and claim to fame, and charitably – even if they believed that AI might turn out to be a dud, they'd think it imprudent to diminish the awareness of the possible consequences. The biases of people also invested materially are obvious enough, though it must be said that many beneficiaries of the AGI hype train are implicitly or explicitly skeptical of even «moderate» maximalist predictions (eg Jensen Huang, the guy who's personally gained THE MOST from it, says he'd study physics to help with robotics if he were a student today – probably not something a «full cognitive labor automation within 10 years» guy would argue).
But herein also lies an argument against bulverism. For both genres of AI maximalist will readily admit their biases. I, for one, will say that the promise of AI makes the future more exciting for me, and screw you, yes I want better medicine and life extension, not just for myself, I have aging and dying relatives, for fuck's sake, and AI seems a much more compelling cope than Jesus. Whereas AI pooh-poohers, in their vast majority, will not admit their biases, will not own up to their emotional reasons to nitpick and seek out causes for skepticism, even to entertain a hypothetical. As an example, see me trying to elicit an answer, in good faith, and getting only an evasive shrug in response. This is a pattern. They will evade, or sneer, or clamp down, or tout some credentials, or insist on going back to the object level (of their nitpicks and confused technical takedowns). In other words, they will refuse a debate on equal grounds, act irrationally. Which implies they are unaware of having a bias, and therefore their reasoning is more suspect.
LLMs as practiced are incredibly flawed, a rushed corporate hack job, a bag of embarrassing tricks, it's a miracle that they work as well as they do. We've got nothing that scales in relevant ways better than LLMs-as-practiced do, though we have some promising candidates. Deep learning as such still lacks clarity, almost every day I go through 5-20 papers that give me some cause to think and doubt. Deep learning isn't the whole of «AI» field, and the field may expand still even in the short term, there are no mathematical, institutional, economic, any good reasons to rule that out. The median prediction for reaching «AGI» (its working definition very debatable, too) may be ≈2032 but the tail extends beyond this century, and we don't have a good track record of predicting technology a century ahead.
Nevertheless for me it seems that only a terminally, irredeemably cocksure individual could rate our progress as even very likely not resulting in software systems that reach genuine parity with high human intelligence within decades. Given the sum total of facts we do have access to, if you want to claim any epistemic humility, the maximally skeptical position you are entitled to is «might be nothing, but idk», else you're just clowning yourself.
- Prev
- Next
I think everyone here recognizes that the George Floyd sanctification was extraordinarily pathetic and even humiliating for the US. It will be very hard to beat, frankly impossible in this case, not least because Kirk was a normal and respected person (no matter how little worth I personally see to his political work) and Floyd was scum of the society. But this is not a good reason to try.
More options
Context Copy link