FKValuta

[Palmer Luckey @PalmerLuckey]

American-made products are not impossible. Stories about iPhones costing $37,000 or laptops costing $100,000 are psy-ops, sometimes pushed by foreign adversaries but more commonly by American corporations that want anything but an upset to the status quo.

[Nate Geraci @NateGeraci]

All talk at this point…

Remember, previous administration tried to kill crypto.

There’s a legit case to be made that had Harris been elected in 2024, the crypto industry might be on life support (or worse) right now.

There was no “working in a bipartisan fashion” on crypto during Biden admin.

It was purely anti-crypto & regulation by enforcement.

Which obviously had nothing to do w/ Trump’s “ethics” (the current cover story).

So it’s all talk.

Actions speak louder than words.

[FKValuta @FValuta]

@Noahpinion Same with Putin

[Nate Geraci @NateGeraci]

While politicians “protect” you from crypto…

Let’s check in on the national average bank savings account yield.

This is from a weekly survey of 500+ banks & credit unions.

You’re reading that right… it’s 0.64%.

[FKValuta @FValuta]

@ewarren At least he doesn't pretend unlike you Pocahontas

[ℏεsam @Hesamation]

> be anthropic
> say ai might take over internet
> researchers: “it might kill humans.”
> dario: “we need independent evaluators”
> choose metr
> metr gets funded by the same network funding anthropic
> which also funds ai safety orgs
> which also funds doom research
> which also funds policy work
> which also holds major wealth linked to anthropic
> which also funds tarbell
> tarbell pushes doom into time, the verge, science, la times, etc.

> anthropic makes more money
> network gets richer
> more fund goes into ai doom
> ai doom pushes more regulation
> regulation favors “responsible” frontier labs
> anthropic gets more power
> repeat

the doom funds the network → the network amplifies the doom → anthropic benefits from both

[Nate Geraci @NateGeraci]

The only reason Clarity Act hasn’t passed yet is b/c crypto disrupts traditional banking model…

It’s really that simple.

We can talk ethics, BRCA, etc.

But it all boils down to crypto reducing need for banks as intermediaries & disrupting net interest income model.

And the politicians who are incentivized to support that model.

[publius.btc @publiusbtc]

@PalmerLuckey @Austen We’ve seen this before.

[FKValuta @FValuta]

@levie What's stopping them from doing that now?

[Vlad Tenev @vladtenev]

@CEOAdam What’s the concern?

[Michael 英泉 Eisen @mbeisen]

Data Centers already use HALF of the water from the Colorado River. HALF!!! We have to ban Data Centers now!!!!

Oh no wait. That’s alfalfa for cows.

[Laura Shin @laurashin]

If Clarity doesn't pass, I'm going to be very upset. And it's not because of crypto necessarily

It's because the geopolitcal balance is precarious, and finance and tech are some of the most important industries that determine the global powers

So if the US is not the leader, then who?

There are no good options, which means if the US is not the leader, then things get bad

I don't want to live in that world

So Congresspeople, get your heads out of your asses and think about the world order and think about how important it is that the world leader big a capitalist democracy and not any of the other systems

Please

[FKValuta @FValuta]

@BarstoolBigCat Do you call pass interference on a hail mary? You don't give a red and basically decide who the winner is. Let them play.

[Dave Portnoy @stoolpresidente]

Sometimes I exaggerate or say things for views. This is not one of those times. When you declare neutrality in every single World War like Belgium has done and rely on the United States to save your ass you lose your right to complain about an overturned red card 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️

[Will Cain @willcain]

Such a spectacle to see all these euro soccer journalists and federations climb atop a moral high horse to say the integrity of the game demands that an incorrect call, enforced by an incorrect application of VAR, deprive the U.S. of a full squad.

[DonAlt @DonAlt]

If I was a bad actor I would

1) Have someone launch a coin for me
2) Take it over to "save the community"
3)Airdrop a bunch of the supply to friends & influencers
*That way they'll stay quiet when it goes to shit
4) A bunch more to my unknown side wallets
*Justify it as airdropping to community
5) Look like an angel
6) Cash out on the side holding on main
7) Keep bullposting

Coin goes to zero eventually? I'm still holding you idiots did this, why can't we have nice things
"I'm losing infinite just as you are"
"At least we tried"
All the while I'm laughing my way to the bank

Glad this is just a hypothetical, would be truly evil if anyone did this

[DonAlt @DonAlt]

"We just had the cynicism cycle, that's why everything went to zero and crypto isn't taken serious anymore"

"So what should we do about it?"

"Maybe launch some more grifter garbage, jerk each other off on the timeline and ruin the space some more?"

This space deserves zero

[Aaron Levie @levie]

It should be 100% obvious that there will soon be mythos level models on cyber security that are open and available to anyone. As a byproduct of this, alternative tech stacks will emerge that also drive more economic value and control away from the US’s tech stack.

This is what should be considered when thinking through the gate keeping you want to have in AI. If advanced models will become open and available regardless, then by not allowing the release of models you’re neither more secure nor better off strategically.

So much of the regulatory approach to AI has to assume China can’t catch up, when all current evidence suggests they can and are. And further, hard to imagine a higher priority than winning in AI for China; so you’re basically betting against their long term ingenuity, talent and motivation. Seems like a bad bet.

So your options are either to create gates around your best models, which means you’re asymmetrically disadvantaging yourself, or you work to ensure you’re always at the frontier and driving the future architectures of AI.

[Ash Jogalekar @curiouswavefn]

As a scientist, AI has made me feel the most intellectually alive and excited I have felt since I was a graduate student and postdoc more than 20 years ago. Every day I can start with an idea in the morning, and by lunchtime, I see a testable, rational, well-thought-out hypothesis forming in front of my eyes. And every day, the possibilities seem endless, like mountains beyond mountains. What a time to be alive.

Here's a case in point. I'm collaborating with a professor, an experimentalist, who is trying to solve a thorny problem in his field. There's one particular molecule that he is using in his experiments that seems to result in radically different crystal structures compared to similar molecules. What's happening here? He has come up with a few different hypotheses that could explain the differences but is not a theoretician and needs to tease them apart.

On Thursday, I started an investigation using AI at his bequest. The AI immediately confirmed the hypotheses that he had in mind and added a few of its own.

Then it started its exploration. The investigation was carried out in three different phases, each of increasing difficulty; the first one using classical physics, and the second and third using quantum mechanical techniques of increasing rigor. This tiered strategy is the right one.

By Thursday evening, I had the glimpse of an answer. Most of the hypotheses had been examined and rejected. Two stood out, although the AI identified one as more a mechanism through which the other one operated rather than a root cause. It immediately pivoted to the higher-level, more rigorous calculation.

Every time I interacted with the AI, it was more like a dialogue between a professor and a bright student or scientific collaborator than a mandate issued to a tool. The feeling was very much of a process where the AI and I were solving a problem together. I steered the conversation several times, pushed back, suggested course-corrections, acknowledged my own wrong ideas as well as the AI's and went back and forth. The AI was successful in keeping multiple requests in its memory, stacking them by priority while never losing the conversation thread.

By late Friday morning, there had collected enough data from the more rigorous calculation to corroborate the suspicion that it was really just one hypothesis that was the root cause. It then moved on to the next step, which was to come up with a distinct set of novel molecules that would confirm the hypothesis beyond any reasonable doubt. In addition, it launched an even more rigorous calculation at a higher level of theory.

By the end of Friday, roughly 48 hours later, using this multi-layered approach of increasing rigor, backed up by references, and made useful and actionable by testable experiments, the AI had arrived at a solid, rigorous conclusion.

Now imagine doing this every day, about any topic under the scientific sun, in any scientific field, so that your intellectual labor is multiplied a million-fold.

Mountains beyond mountains. What a time to be alive.

[Justin Murphy @jmrphy]

If they really start to gatekeep who gets to use the best models, that is a declaration of war.

This prospect fills me with the most sincere, bodily cypherpunk will-to-power that I've ever felt (at least since I was a teenager). If they really go down this route, I would go all-in on building the most psychotic swarms of open-source models and fine-tunes possible, all geared toward a Chaotic Good jamming of the entire institutional public sphere. If we didn't do that, all of political life and the marketplace of ideas would be over before we know it.

It's one thing if the top models become too expensive for me or others to use (I'm already pricing that in, and if you can't build something profitable enough to climb that ladder as it gets pulled up, then that's fair enough).

But if the ladder gets pulled up politically, now, so only select institutional players get access to the most intelligent models, then any mature American man should be as energized as gun collectors are around the 2nd Amendment, or liberal women are around Planned Parenthood.