head of coffee at an AI startup is kind of an incredible role ngl

SF’s dating pool was once, as an Egyptian founder put it to us, “drier than the desert in my homeland.” Now, gorgeous women are flocking to the city. Why? As AI gets cheaper to build, companies flush with venture cash are hiring beautiful women to charm investors and clients. Enjoy it while it lasts, gentlemen. As @nicolewizman1 writes: paying hotties 6 figures to get drunk with your business prospects feels like a pretty good sign we’re in a bubble. 👇

For the record, I know plenty of women who are beautiful, smart, ambitious, and building or doing genuinely cool things. What we’re talking about is a trend that we, along with many others, have noticed which is AI companies increasingly hiring attractive women to help drive sales!!

"gorgeous women are flocking to san francisco. should we be worried about the economy?"

SF’s dating pool was once, as an Egyptian founder put it to us, “drier than the desert in my homeland.” Now, gorgeous women are flocking to the city. Why? As AI gets cheaper to build, companies flush with venture cash are hiring beautiful women to charm investors and clients. Enjoy it while it lasts, gentlemen. As @nicolewizman1 writes: paying hotties 6 figures to get drunk with your business prospects feels like a pretty good sign we’re in a bubble. 👇

SF’s dating pool was once, as an Egyptian founder put it to us, “drier than the desert in my homeland.” Now, gorgeous women are flocking to the city. Why? As AI gets cheaper to build, companies flush with venture cash are hiring beautiful women to charm investors and clients. Enjoy it while it lasts, gentlemen. As @nicolewizman1 writes: paying hotties 6 figures to get drunk with your business prospects feels like a pretty good sign we’re in a bubble. 👇

"I don't want to have to scan my face for lunch. I don't want him to have to do that. He's an American. We're not Chinese," said Jenny, referring to her toddler son. The room applauded. She voted for Trump ("I voted for the idiot three times") and thinks he's using China as the blueprint.

A few readers have taken me to task for “missing the point of the film,” which is apparently that Elizabeth Holmes is unknowable and everything is ambiguous. Here’s my response: She went after Tyler Shultz and Erika Cheung with everything she had. I was threatened with litigation on a daily basis for months on end. It was a ruthless cover-up of a breathtaking fraud, and she was at the controls. Just a little context for those who have forgotten or didn’t follow the original story. By the way, I loved the film. #BestPicture, IMO.

thrilled to have this deep dive published with @PirateWires!!! a sincere investigation into why so many prominent AI doomers are also extremely kinky, & what this overlap reveals about the movement's underlying psychology

It’s easy to find sensationalized, low-brow, bad-faith writing about “rationalists” in the AI world. But is there perhaps a more sincere way of scrutinizing the worldview of the people at the heart of this movement: one that is currently shaping public discourse, policy proposals, and alignment research? In this earnest philosophical inquiry, @jane_gatsby explores: why are so many rationalists convinced AI will kill everyone while also participating in practices like “consensual non-consent” orgies? What could possibly explain the overlap? She offers three theories, culminating in: relational wounds. For rationalists, some of whom grew up with highly religious and/or disturbed parents, discomfort in the face of uncertainty fuels a fixation on control. This manifests in everything from elaborate, unconventional, kinky bedroom practices to AI alignment. Repressed desires and fears find increasingly extreme outlets. As Jane puts it: “what is artificial intelligence if not an Other of potentially cosmic significance who is impossible to predict or constrain?” These are just theories. But rationalists’ influence on AI discourse is undeniable, and their worldview, as Jane argues, is “metaphysically nihilistic.” There are other, more productive ways to approach AI development besides treating the models as some evil, adversarial force. Besides: “You cannot successfully align something when your own perspective is crooked.” Full piece threaded 👇

It’s easy to find sensationalized, low-brow, bad-faith writing about “rationalists” in the AI world. But is there perhaps a more sincere way of scrutinizing the worldview of the people at the heart of this movement: one that is currently shaping public discourse, policy proposals, and alignment research? In this earnest philosophical inquiry, @jane_gatsby explores: why are so many rationalists convinced AI will kill everyone while also participating in practices like “consensual non-consent” orgies? What could possibly explain the overlap? She offers three theories, culminating in: relational wounds. For rationalists, some of whom grew up with highly religious and/or disturbed parents, discomfort in the face of uncertainty fuels a fixation on control. This manifests in everything from elaborate, unconventional, kinky bedroom practices to AI alignment. Repressed desires and fears find increasingly extreme outlets. As Jane puts it: “what is artificial intelligence if not an Other of potentially cosmic significance who is impossible to predict or constrain?” These are just theories. But rationalists’ influence on AI discourse is undeniable, and their worldview, as Jane argues, is “metaphysically nihilistic.” There are other, more productive ways to approach AI development besides treating the models as some evil, adversarial force. Besides: “You cannot successfully align something when your own perspective is crooked.” Full piece threaded 👇

Just finished reading. This is easily the best long-form piece of writing I've read in a very long time. I read a lot of magazine articles where the author just rambles on or reaches some kind of half-baked conclusion that you can debunk with just five minutes of deep thinking. That's if they are not making sweeping statements without bothering to show the chain of thought (pun slightly intended) that led to specific conclusions. I've always believed that if you write clearly and honestly, a rational and intellectually honest reader will agree with the conclusion. Ironically, this is an idea rooted in rationalism: rationalists believe two people cannot "agree to disagree" if they have the same priors (also called Aumann's Agreement Theorem). This article is perhaps the first time I've found myself agreeing completely with an author because I could clearly see the evidence + the observations match up with what I've observed myself, meaning I'd have to (naturally) reach the same conclusion. I also like that it adds a lot of nuance and genuinely tries to provide as much context as possible. This is not something you see frequently; the average public intellectual-cum-writer already knows what position they want to argue for and know their camp will support the conclusion irrespective of whether it's true or not, so they don't bother trying to present an impartial view so that readers can make up their own minds. It's harder to write this way, but imo it makes reading very much worth it. Generally, it's a beautifully written piece. I'd probably break some unknown rule about keeping Twitter comments short, so I'll stop here. It's not everyday I read something that makes me go "Wow. I want to write like that", so I just had to find your Twitter and leave what might be the longest comment in the history of people commenting on Twitter. More ink to your pen!

Stop eating octopus you sickos. Or at least, if you’re going to eat them, watch My Octopus Teacher on Netflix first. They are very strange and autistic and cute. They play with fish!!! PLAY!! I have zero identification with their plight. And even if I did, which I don’t, it would have nothing to do with the choice to display 3 of them in my house. Cc @Willob obviously

It’s easy to find sensationalized, low-brow, bad-faith writing about “rationalists” in the AI world. But is there perhaps a more sincere way of scrutinizing the worldview of the people at the heart of this movement: one that is currently shaping public discourse, policy proposals, and alignment research? In this earnest philosophical inquiry, @jane_gatsby explores: why are so many rationalists convinced AI will kill everyone while also participating in practices like “consensual non-consent” orgies? What could possibly explain the overlap? She offers three theories, culminating in: relational wounds. For rationalists, some of whom grew up with highly religious and/or disturbed parents, discomfort in the face of uncertainty fuels a fixation on control. This manifests in everything from elaborate, unconventional, kinky bedroom practices to AI alignment. Repressed desires and fears find increasingly extreme outlets. As Jane puts it: “what is artificial intelligence if not an Other of potentially cosmic significance who is impossible to predict or constrain?” These are just theories. But rationalists’ influence on AI discourse is undeniable, and their worldview, as Jane argues, is “metaphysically nihilistic.” There are other, more productive ways to approach AI development besides treating the models as some evil, adversarial force. Besides: “You cannot successfully align something when your own perspective is crooked.” Full piece threaded 👇