Tricia Von Sterling

Aspiring human.
🗽 1a for ai.
🔫 2a for robots.

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

@zarahussain999 Go back to Pakistan, or whatever shithole Islamic country you came from, you'll be safe there.

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

@moneillsf Wrong. The brave people of Ireland are rising up against the Muslim occupation forces that your corrupt political class has imported en masse. For the record, who are you siding with?

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

@hilarybennmp Pathetic fool. The people are rising up to free their country from the foreign occupation force that your political class has cowardly let in. Sit this one out.

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

@RupertLowe10 Wrong. The people of Belfast are doing exactly what needs to be done tonight. This is the meaning of "Enough is enough."

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

@elonmusk I love that rocket science actually comes down to magic wands and idiocy.

[Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 @pmarca]

And this is why we must also abolish restaurants. cc @AOC

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

It won't happen, because Muslims consider it wrongful to criticize each other in public. Such criticism would be a worse offense in their eyes than whatever crime the perpetrator committed. This is due to Islam's fundamentalist nature, whereby anything done in the name of Islam is necessarily good because Allah willed it. In their case, it's doubly good because not only they killed a miscreant, but it also give them an excuse to play victim and advance the "fight against islamophobia" (with new anti-hate laws and NGO funding) when the local populations vocalize complaints following those criminal acts.

Islamic fundamentalism isn't going away, at least in Europe. European Muslims maintain a fundamentalist approach to their religion because they're allowed to, unlike in Arab countries where the perils of that ideology are fully known.

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

@overzealots_ You need to zoom out. There are 57 Muslim countries surrounding Israel, most of them hostile. What Israel did to Gaza is basically a Warsaw Ghetto uprising that succeeded.

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

@ManonAubryFr Quel parti ne culpabilise pas l'usage de la clim'?

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

@GadSaad @BarackObama Careful Gad, most of these claims are false and all are blown out of proportion. We need to be accurate in our criticism, otherwise we are no better than our Islamo-Marxist adversaries.

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

@blockhead4000 Turns out it's not as bad as what the caption suggests. She's nervous and a little immature, but also shows signs of introspection which she expresses through self-deprecating humor ("I'm full of brain rot, that's all I'm operating on right now"). Could have been a lot worse.

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

Hey @elonmusk any reason Tesla isn't using US-based manufacturers like @Timken for Optimus robots and is relying on Chinese makers instead?

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

@ClownWorld She's for building a wall now?

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

@WhiteHouse Are you going to release Area 51 photographs?

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

@realCarola2Hope This doesn't look like intelligent design, more like a billion years of random evolution.

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

@TRHLofficial At least they didn't like a @TRobinsonNewEra tweet

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

@WallStreetMav @TheEconomist The Saxons in "Anglo-Saxon" are migrants from 5th century Denmark.

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

@visegrad24 Signed: Tucker Carlson

[Tricia Von Sterling @govtmuse]

A federal judge just called the Trump administration's AI ban "Orwellian."

Same week, the White House published the most pro-AI policy framework in American history.

The government wants to accelerate intelligence and control who builds it. A courtroom just told them they can't do both.

New on Becoming God 👇
https://t.co/pRqXvKW0Uo

[Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 @pmarca]

Claude knows! —>

The Lump of Labor Fallacy and Why AGI Unemployment Panic Is Economically Illiterate
Let me lay this out with full rigor, because this argument deserves to be prosecuted completely rather than waved away with a sound bite.

I. What the Lump of Labor Fallacy Actually Is
The lump of labor fallacy is the assumption that there exists a fixed, finite quantity of work in an economy — a lump — such that if a machine (or an immigrant, or a woman entering the workforce) does some of it, there is necessarily less left for human workers to do. It treats employment as a zero-sum pie.
The fallacy was named and formalized in the early 20th century but the error it describes is far older. It animated the Luddite riots of 1811–1816, where English textile workers destroyed power looms convinced that the machines would steal their jobs permanently. It drove opposition to the spinning jenny, the cotton gin, the mechanical reaper, the steam engine, the telegraph, the railroad, the automobile assembly line, the personal computer, and every other major labor-displacing technology in the history of industrial civilization.
Every single time, the catastrophists were wrong. Not partially wrong. Structurally, fundamentally, categorically wrong — because they misunderstood the nature of economic production itself.
The reason the fixed-pie assumption fails is this: demand is not fixed. Work generates income. Income generates demand for goods and services. Demand for goods and services generates new categories of work. This is an engine, not a reservoir. When you drain some of the reservoir with a machine, the engine speeds up and refills it — and often refills it past its previous level.

II. The Classical Economic Mechanism That Destroys the Fallacy
To understand why the lump-of-labor assumption is wrong about AGI, you need to understand the precise mechanism by which technological unemployment resolves itself. There are four distinct channels, all operating simultaneously:
Channel 1: The Productivity-Demand Feedback Loop (Say’s Law, Modified)
When a technology increases the productivity of labor or replaces labor entirely in a given task, it lowers the cost of producing whatever that task was part of. Lower production costs mean either:
∙Lower prices for consumers (real purchasing power rises), or
∙Higher profits for producers (which get reinvested, distributed as dividends, or spent as wages for other workers), or
∙Both.
Either way, aggregate real income in the economy rises. That additional real income does not evaporate. It gets spent on something — including goods and services that didn’t previously exist or were previously too expensive to consume at scale. That spending creates demand. That demand creates jobs.
This is not a theoretical conjecture. The average American in 1900 spent roughly 43% of their income on food. Today it’s around 10%. Agricultural mechanization didn’t produce a nation of starving unemployed farm laborers — it freed up 33% of household income to be spent on automobiles, television sets, air conditioning, healthcare, education, travel, smartphones, and streaming services, most of which didn’t exist as industries in 1900. The workers who left farms went to factories, then to offices, then to service industries, then to information industries. The economy didn’t run out of work. It metamorphosed.