Stephen Prewitt

[Stephen Prewitt @StephenPrewML]

@L4nd32 Tell people your secrets and many will use them against you.

[Stephen Prewitt @StephenPrewML]

@StrategicWin5 @Patriotsally17 @MilesTaylorUSA Neither does the White House ballroom. Which is what people are pointing out with their replies to Miles Taylor.

[Stephen Prewitt @StephenPrewML]

@cremieuxrecueil Clearly Japan was blameless!

[Stephen Prewitt @StephenPrewML]

@EconstratPB We should have politicians who care about *all* Americans, not just the rich ones pulling strings. And who have brains enough to understand that socialism/communism cannot work (a low bar indeed).

[Jay @pu3he]

卧槽，这踏马太毒了

DeepMind 掌门人、诺奖得主 Demis Hassabis 刚刚把延续了上百年的现代学校教育底裤彻底扒光了：

全球几十万名数学老师每天关在办公室里，为同一门中学数学课重复手搓着一模一样的 PPT，这简直是人类智力资源最荒诞的工业级空转。

很多人至今还把名校名师的课堂讲授当成稀缺资源，拼了命去抢学区房和重点班，

但 Hassabis 直接用最冷酷的第一性原理砸碎了这个幻觉，

标准化的知识灌输从来不配占用昂贵的线下课堂，死记硬背和刷题完全应该被踢出教室，交给能按每个孩子毫秒级反应速度实时调频的私人 AI，加上全世界最顶尖的那几个大师录好底层大课，就足以把全球基础教育的讲授环节一次性彻底平替。

过去两百年里，学校本质上是一座把千差万别的碳基大脑强行塞进同一条流水线、按同一个节拍器拧螺丝的工业时代兵营，

老师沦为了人肉复读机，学生被困在枯燥的题海里比拼谁更像一台劣质硬盘，
而一旦 AI 和顶级大师把标准化的知识传递彻底接管，线下教室唯一剩下的合法存在价值，就只剩下了机器永远无法通过权重计算出来的五个维度：

人际博弈、复杂项目实战、创业野心、创造力，以及最致命的判断力。

这里有一个极度冷酷的反直觉真相：
当个性化 AI 把考高分的边际成本砸穿地板，按标准答案培养出来的做题家，在出校门的那一刻就已经直接沦为了算力废料。

未来的阶层分化，从来不再取决于谁的脑子里背下了更多现成的公式，
而是取决于当 AI 把一万种完美方案同时拍在桌上时，谁拥有拍板做决定的判断力，谁能攒起一个活人团队去把事情干成，

所以别再逼着孩子在死记硬背的泥潭里跟硅基芯片比拼记忆容量了，当流水线式的教书匠和做题家同时迎来历史性失业，谁能先把教室变成训练人性直觉与创业野心的实战沙盘，谁才能在算力时代拿到唯一不被平替的入场券

[Stephen Prewitt @StephenPrewML]

@wmnfsprt That's a lot of baggage to carry over the bar.

[Stephen Prewitt @StephenPrewML]

@MensHumor Agreed. And I'm sure she knows it, so the post is odd. Pretending to be humble?

[Data before Drama @Texamigo]

This case, the Lindsay Clancy insanity, and Cornell 7 hysteria show us that women believe they are completely incapable of taking control of their lives and accepting responsibility & accountability for their own choices.

"I'm such a strong, independent woman that can make my own decisions but society and men are responsible whenever I make a stupid decision!"

"Ok so do you want men to protect and supervise you so you don't make those stupid decisions you regret?"

"What the hell why are you trying to control women you incel freak?"

This is the current state of "reasoning with" women.

From this point forward, should we should we just assume that every woman is nothing more than a sinister bus station whore - until proven otherwise?

[Krzysztof Szczawinski 🇵🇱 @Kristof_Poland]

No need to form a new country. Technology, the future and the truth already have a home: it’s called Western Civilization, which invented and built its whole history on all three. What it lacks is an entity that watches over it, and a place where those who want to defend it can meet. We need to organize under its banner.

The Council of Western Civilization.

The West has institutions for everything: fisheries, semiconductor supply chains, the harmonization of pillow-labeling standards. It has no institution tasked with defending the civilization that produced all of the above.

This is not an oversight. It is the result of an assumption: that Western civilization was the default, the background, the thing that would simply continue because it always had. That assumption is no longer tenable. The civilization is being dismantled, quietly and less quietly – institution by institution, border by border, curriculum by curriculum. And there is no body whose explicit mandate is to notice it, name it, and act.

The Council of Western Civilization would exist for one purpose: to do what no existing institution does. To identify, name and defend the specific civilizational inheritance that makes everything else possible – the rule of law, individual freedom, meritocracy, the separation of powers, the free market, the family, cultural memory, and the borders that protect the particular against the abstract universal and the civilizationally alien.

Not a government. Not a supranational authority. A council: a body of people who understand what is being lost, and who can read the civilizational grammar clearly enough to name it and act on it. Drawn from the nations that still know what they are defending.

Three tasks.

First: draw the map – an honest, complete diagnosis of where Western civilization stands, what is being dismantled, what can still be defended, and what must be rebuilt.

Second: build the counter-framework – the institutions the current system has stopped being, ones that reward honesty, merit and the transmission of what is worth transmitting.

Third: spread the vocabulary – the words that let people name what they are living through. You cannot fight a disease you cannot name.

Not a secret council with secret meetings – unlike the other side, which cannot openly admit what it decides or who decides it. A public one, fully transparent, with a real address – a place anyone can visit – whose positions, members and decisions are visible to everyone. The defense of Western civilization does not require darkness. It requires exactly what the other side cannot offer: the truth, stated plainly, in public, without a mask.

People from many countries should join: America, of course, France, Italy – and Poland, the nation that paid the full price for being cut off from the West, and fought its way back. Because of its spirit of freedom and its resilience. The nation that disappeared from the map and came back. The nation that held the gate at Vienna, rebuilt its capital from paintings, and understands, in its bones, what it means to defend something worth defending.

The West needs an institution that watches over it. It does not have one. It is time to build it.

Then comes a people: everyone, in any country, who chooses to belong to this civilization. Not by passport, but by voluntary association – a people bound by shared values, not shared paperwork.

And then, the countries: reclaiming the historical lands of the West, from Athens and Rome to Warsaw and Philadelphia. By the same way they were lost – institution by institution, only faster.

The country you want to live in is not a new one. It's the old one, taken back.

[Stephen Prewitt @StephenPrewML]

@MusicRubberHose @xavier93yc @grok Grok is very confident it IS her. I don't know — I hope you're right.

[Stephen Prewitt @StephenPrewML]

@BigGeorgesWife @anydazeaol59897 Lol. I'm too lazy confirm this but it gave me a good laugh!

[Stephen Prewitt @StephenPrewML]

@WayOfMenn I'm not sure but I think he's redefining "smart people" as "people who can predict the future." Which is indeed smart, because only people who understand human nature, game theory and how human societies function can do it well. That's a short list.

[Bill Ackman @BillAckman]

Five years ago, an important miscarriage of justice occurred.

The story began in April 2018 when David Sabatini, an MIT, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), and Whitehead Institute scientist and professor began a consensual intimate relationship with Dr. Kristin Knouse, a principal investigator with her own lab at the Whitehead.

By January 2020, David sought to end the relationship, but Knouse apparently did not want it to end. When David thereafter started a new relationship and Knouse learned about it, she began a secretive campaign to destroy him by attempting to end his career as a scientist. She did so by damaging his name, reputation, and that of his family with false sexual harassment and other claims, thereby making him unemployable.

Knouse conspired with Dr. Ruth Lehmann, the then- and still current Director (i.e., President) of the Whitehead Institute, in her efforts to destroy Sabatini.

The record presented in court demonstrated that Dr. Lehmann committed to Knouse in October of 2020 that she would fire David. Dr. Lehmann made this commitment to Knouse before any investigation of the facts had taken place.

Seven months after committing to fire him, in March of 2021, Dr. Lehmann, on behalf of the Whitehead, hired the law firm of Hinckley, Allen, Snyder (HAS) to undergo an investigation of David. By July 2021, HAS shared a draft of its conclusions with MIT, HHMI, and the Whitehead, but not with David or his lawyers.

On the morning of August 19, 2021, David for the first time received the more than 200-page investigative report and a calendar invite for a meeting the following day with Dr. Lehmann, the president of HHMI, and the HR directors of both institutions. The report was riddled with errors and unsupported claims about David and his relationship with Knouse.

When David's lawyer immediately thereafter reached out to Whitehead counsel to ask whether David was about to be fired, they confirmed that he would be terminated at the meeting.

On the advice of his lawyer, David immediately resigned from HHMI and the Whitehead rather than attend the meeting. HHMI did not accept his resignation, choosing instead to fire him. MIT put David on leave and ultimately revoked his tenure. David thereafter resigned from MIT.

On August 20, 2021, one day after sending David the HAS report and before David had the opportunity to dispute the facts and the conclusions of the investigation, Dr. Lehmann emailed all employees at the Whitehead informing them that David had violated a number of Whitehead policies "including policies concerning sexual harassment."

The Lehmann public email, David's resignation and firing, and Dr. Lehmann's claims about David's sexual harassment exploded into a major global scandal covered in mainstream, social, and scientific media around the world as it had all of the requisite ingredients:

An attractive target with David, one of the most important scientists of his generation in line for the Nobel Prize, a purported inappropriate sexual relationship with a younger female colleague, and a political and institutional environment where punishing a man for sexual harassment advanced the career and reputation of the person and/or institution that destroyed the career and reputation of the accused, regardless of the validity of the allegations.

As a result of Knouse's claims, Lehmann's sham investigation, and the media onslaught that followed, David lost all sources of income and his reputation was destroyed. All prizes he had been previously been awarded were withdrawn. He was removed from all scientific advisory and other honorary roles other than as a member of our family foundation's (the Pershing Square Foundation's) scientific advisory board.

When I initially learned of the news about David in the summer of 2021, I hired him as a consultant to the Pershing Square Foundation as I believed our small foundation team would benefit greatly by his insights (and he now had the time to help us), and he needed the money to support his family.

At my request and under a confidentiality agreement, David provided us with many hundreds of pages of documents including texts and other communications with Knouse, the investigative report, and David's responses to the allegations so that we could do our own evaluation of Knouse's claims.

I and a member of our family office's legal team carefully reviewed the documents. After a careful review of the empirical documents -- in particular the texts between Knouse and David -- it became abundantly clear that Knouse's actions were that of an angry and jilted lover, not those of a sexually harassed junior colleague. And the investigative report appeared designed to deliver a pre-ordained conclusion rather than a dispassionate fact-based analysis.

The impact of the firings and the destruction of his career and reputation on David and his family was extraordinarily devastating, so much so that we became increasingly concerned that he might commit suicide.

[In order to make sure that David's important scientific research would continue, in February 2023, in partnership with an anonymous donor, we funded $25 million to support David launching a new lab. As you might expect, I was reviled in the press, in scientific journals, and on social media for doing so and for supporting a so-called sex offender.]

On October 20, 2021, David filed suit against Knouse alleging defamation and tortious interference in his career and his contractual arrangements. Thereafter, Knouse brought counterclaims against David.

Today, nearly five years to the date of the filing of the suit, he has finally received justice.

Today, a 13-person jury (seven men and six women) of David Sabatini's peers (12 jurors plus an alternate) unanimously determined that David proved that Kristin Knouse defamed him, tortiously interfered with his contractual relationships (his entire career as a scientist), and tortiously interfered with his prospective advantageous relationships (his future employment). The jury awarded him nearly $10 million in damages including interest.

The jury rejected all of Knouse's claims including her claims that David engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment and created a sexually hostile work environment.

While five years is a very long time to live under a reputational cloud, justice was finally served today for David, but not completely in my view.

To this day, Dr. Ruth Lehmann remains Director of the Whitehead Institute. Dr. Lehmann worked alongside Dr. Knouse to destroy David Sabatini, an acclaimed scientist and professor. She did not follow due process before she intentionally destroyed David's career and reputation.

Dr. Lehmann nearly killed David with her actions, as had we not rescued David by finding him employment, supporting him publicly to buffer the reputational damage, and supporting his recovery, he could have ended his life and left his son without a father before the world understood what had transpired here.

And the reputational damage was not just to David.

David's brother, Bernardo Sabatini, is one of the most important neuroscientists in the world. To this day, he has had to deal with a large cloud over his family name and reputation. Recently, when the new CEO of our brain institute mentioned that Bernardo Sabatini was on our board, he was asked: "Wasn't he involved in some kind of sex scandal?"

For obvious reasons, the character of the person who runs a scientific institute is of utmost importance. Among other failures here, Dr. Ruth Lehmann committed to Knouse that she would fire David many months before an investigation was even launched and without consideration of the empirical facts.

How can one trust research produced by a scientific institute if its leader is not committed to observing the empirical facts before reaching conclusions that have life-threatening import? We have unfortunately seen massive amounts of scientific fraud which has harmed innumerable human lives and wasted billions of dollars of research funding and time.

For her ethical breaches here, Dr. Lehmann should be fired from the Whitehead. Based on her actions in this case, she is in no position to serve as the leader of an important scientific institute.

I speak with some perspective on how scientific and other institutions should be led. Including the recent launch of the Ackman Oxman Institute, we have funded approximately $1 billion of scientific research and institutions over the last decade or so, and this experience has given us the opportunity to meet the leadership of many of the most important scientific institutions in the world.

To put it plainly, we would not give a dollar to a scientific institute whose leader compromised basic moral principles as has happened here.

At an absolute minimum, the board of the Whitehead should immediately launch a detailed and independent investigation of Dr. Lehmann's actions in the Sabatini case. I would encourage the investigation, among other considerations, to carefully exam all of the correspondence between Lehmann and Knouse, as well their correspondence with the HAS law firm on among other areas, the various drafts of the Sabatini investigative report.

Alternatively, Dr. Lehmann could resign, minimize further distraction for the Whitehead, and save institutional time and resources that would be better spent on research that benefits humanity.

[Stephen Prewitt @StephenPrewML]

@itsrosesm Not every day. But on special occasions, certainly.

[Stephen Prewitt @StephenPrewML]

@midnightbaby79 @Steve_Sailer Leftists and Muslims: that's the real enemy list.

[Steve Sailer @Steve_Sailer]

Economic historian Gregory Clark, author of "A Farewell to Alms" and "The Son Also Rises," assembles huge databases from early modern England to study nature vs. nurture in the Industrial Revolution.

But academic publishers won't touch his third book:

https://t.co/SW7mHBug6R

[Crémieux @cremieuxrecueil]

>tfw perfect GRE multiple choice scores

[Stephen Prewitt @StephenPrewML]

@mathelirium If Earth's gravity wasn't significant even out to the moon, the moon wouldn't orbit Earth.

[Stephen Prewitt @StephenPrewML]

@LukeGromen @RonDeSantis It ended pretty badly in 1929 too.