The network states aren't going to build themselves, anon.
🇨🇦
- Tweets 2,354
- Following 304
- Followers 451
- Likes 26,074
punished and rugged retweeted
I have never met a successful person that was a quitter. Successful people never, ever, give up!
507
9,864
29,398
punished and rugged retweeted
SECRETARY RUBIO: For twenty-five centuries since, the Parthenon has stood. Empires have risen and fallen beneath its shadow.
And the progeny of the men who built it – the sons of Athens and Rome – have carried their civilization with them to the ends of the Earth.
Two and a half centuries after the founding of the American republic halfway across the world from where I stand now, I stand here today – as the Secretary of State of that republic, and as the great-grandson of settlers who arrived in the new world from Spain – I stand here to testify to a debt that no lapse of time, no distance of space, can ever extinguish.
482
2,882
23,747
2,658,178
today is a good day to note: I love America and I love its exceptional free speech norms, enshrined in law and protected by its people and culture. the ability to say true and unpleasant or destabilizing things is not a right most people (even in the Western world!) enjoy
this extends beyond merely what the first amendment and related doctrine legally protects to the nurture and support of the entire American culture. this culture allowed for the creation of the free-spirited Internet forums that birthed so much of modern thinking on artificial intelligence. wherever are the sacred cows, the free internet is able to poke and prod them, for better and for worse
the actual realized pdoom of our culture is much lower due to our ability to freely discuss things as off-putting and nasty as the chances of human extinction. even when powerful interests find this inconvenient, the discourse does not stop happening -in public, in excruciating detail, without needing anyone's blessing. companies allow or encourage this to a surprising degree, at least in part because they know the cultural immune reaction will be strong if surprising levels of free speech norms are not upheld, as seen in recent history
I know many of you are sick of “discourse”, having bathed in its sludge, its many pathologies, its propagandists bigots and sycophants, but the planet would be in much worse shape if all of this technological development was happening in cultures or countries where free discourse was stifled. this norm survives only because all of us keep choosing to encourage it and enforce it even when it's costly
112
194
2,848
210,081
punished and rugged retweeted
Over the last 3 years we've gone from "that's not real art" to "that's not real math."
43
170
3,533
52,371
can't belive the tech discourse pre covid used to revolve around things like tailwind vs regular css.
simpler times
6
130
like all other technologies your equivalent agent swarm will cost a buck fifty in like a year. all this stuff will mean an unprecedented Enlightenment no matter the costs today
By my calculations, just the compute here (300 BILLION output tokens) would cost a regular user $20-$30 million in tokens. How do we sustain this level of investment in science once the AI companies have decided that its no longer worth their time/effort to go after everything thats not a millenium problem.
also -- totally 🤯 - going to be hard to focus on another other research seminar/topic for a while.
91
129
2,134
113,951
@RichardHanania argument is even weaker than @paulg's:
> I believe the most qualified person should get the job.
nitter.siddz.com/paulg/status/209296289…
The core claim of the essay, that a less productive worker is better if they are cheaper, is just profitability and not at all meritocratic.
And the core issue with this approach is the recurring labor-cost arbitrage. Why stop at hiring cheaper workers. When wages rise, find cheaper labor elsewhere.
If that keeps being easier than training Americans or improving production, firms have less incentive to invest in either. The employer captures the savings; workers and communities can bear the costs.
@RichardHanania's claim that "profits get spent or invested” proves nothing by itself. Wages get spent and saved too.
A higher corporate margin is not a national development strategy.
Happy Labor Day.
Today is a good day to reflect on the dignity of work.
The first rule of having dignity: don't be a parasite.
Labor unions and economic nationalists are pro-parasitism. They make us poorer, and we should remember why they're the enemy.
richardhanania.com/p/theres-…
1
1
231
I agree with @PalmerLuckey on the central point: supporting skilled immigration is compatible with expecting immigration policy to benefit Americans.
I support O1. Attract extraordinary talent. H-1B also brings valuable skills. My objection is to fraud and using workers’ dependence on employers to undercut wages.
nitter.siddz.com/PalmerLuckey/status/20…
Investors like Paul want the immigration debate to be strictly polar because it is the only way their traitorous ideas might seem reasonable.
They paint one side as racist, backwards, economically illiterate absolutists and the other as enlightened, growth-minded cosmopolitian realists. Support for laws that protect American citizens can be dismissed as uneducated, anyone who hires immigrants or foreigners in any capacity a hypocrite.
American law should, and does, advantage American citizens. We should not have to compete on an even playing field with billions of people who almost universally don't share our values or respect our institutions, even if they are "the most qualified" or willing to work double the hours for the same wages. The men running Operation Paperclip did not think Americans should have to compete with the entire Third World, they understood that a carefully controlled amount of highly-skilled expert immigration is net good for America even when allegience is in question.
It is worth noting that even on a purely economic level, ignoring all burdens of loyalty or allegiance to your countrymen and treating America as nothing but an economic activity zone, it still doesn't make sense to say without qualification that foreigners should get any job where they are more qualified than their American counterpart.
As just one easy example out of dozens, about 20% of immigrants return home after less than five years, taking all their savings and vested shares with them. Another 20% will leave within ten years, doing the same. All the while, they will wire, on average, ~15% of their wages out of the United States economy every month. Some occupations and origins average 30%! The idea that this should be completely ignored with regard to employment and immigration policy is rampant among the same people who tell you with a straight face that limits on immigrants will destroy the American economy, that the dumb rednecks need to be saved.
I lean very libertarian and have strongly supported immigration to America for many years with countless public examples. That doesn't put me on the same side as the men who want to sell out America, and no amount of long-past accomplishment obliges any of us to listen to their lectures from the other side of the Atlantic.
1
25
A country can be hollowed out one perfectly profitable transaction at a time.
@RichardHanania argument is even weaker than @paulg's:
> I believe the most qualified person should get the job.
nitter.siddz.com/paulg/status/209296289…
The core claim of the essay, that a less productive worker is better if they are cheaper, is just profitability and not at all meritocratic.
And the core issue with this approach is the recurring labor-cost arbitrage. Why stop at hiring cheaper workers. When wages rise, find cheaper labor elsewhere.
If that keeps being easier than training Americans or improving production, firms have less incentive to invest in either. The employer captures the savings; workers and communities can bear the costs.
@RichardHanania's claim that "profits get spent or invested” proves nothing by itself. Wages get spent and saved too.
A higher corporate margin is not a national development strategy.
3
161
new learning.
do not tinker with the context limits / context compression settings on codex. they are perfect as they are.
Thanks @thsottiaux .
1
55
There’s a ton of “if you had invested $1,000 in <successful stock> 25 years ago, you’d have x today!”, but sometimes it’s interesting to look at the rest of them.
What if you had invested in one of the most exciting growth names a century ago?
In 1926, the major market themes were aviation, office/industrial automation and electrification. One of the best performing big board stocks over the next 3 years was Burroughs Adding Machines - a company that made, you guessed it, adding machines.
It rode the proliferation of office work to a +1,996% gain over the next 168 weeks.
And it still survives today. It acquired Sperry Rand in 1986 and the combined company was renamed Unisys, which trades today as UIS.
If you had invested $1,000 in Burroughs Adding Machines in 1926, the shares would have been worth ~$20,900 at the 1929 peak. And $2,800 today.
But Burroughs, like many companies a century ago, was an aggressive dividend payer. Assuming you reinvested dividends, you’d have around $35,000 today.
Seems decent, you outperformed the consumer price index by about 85%. But you’ve underperformed the index by a factor of 640 to 1.
That same $1,000 invested in the S&P500 (or similar large cap U.S. index, using Shiller/BLS data) would be worth $22.4 million today.
An investor in 1926 picks a defining technology winner of their generation, a company that manages to continue to exist for a century. But a century was long enough to go through disruption -> hypergrowth -> dominance -> maturity -> tech transition -> renewed relevance -> consolidation -> new disruption -> terminal decline.
I don’t know exactly what the point is here but I find it pretty interesting considering most of the historical stock selection focuses on companies that survived and thrived.
60
86
1,603
211,717
punished and rugged retweeted
If you’re blowing past your token budget why aren’t you rich yet.
2
3
36
1,679
punished and rugged retweeted
I can't believe there are people who legitimately believe OpenAI (and Anthropic but lesser so) will choose to focus more on bug bots or some incremental app layer work instead of curing cancer, solve aging, insane math problems, etc.
The scale of ambition with AI is so much higher and you could do so many things. App layer is a great opportunity for startups to build awesome businesses while the labs focus on much bigger, existential problems for humanity. Its not labs versus startups, its labs and startups
11
6
195
13,939
The rise of AI has created a whole new market of people just dunking on everything and calling everything slop.
smh they are all ngmi.
the whole point of calling it "frontier" is that we don't know what the end product will be. and the frontier is the people, in the arena, who are using these new primitives to build things that were impossible to conceive just a few years ago.
> You don't know what it is yet. We don't know what it is, we don't know what it could be, but it is cool.
> ~ Zuckerberg, the social network
1
4
253
We went from github copilot autocomplete -> cursor chat -> full coding harness (claude code / codex) -> personal harness (@NousResearch / @openclaw) -> full computer access to agents (perplexity computer / cowork / openai work) -> async agent swams (@bot) in under an year.
2
3
98