DMT

Navigating the unseen realities. Join me on a consciousness-expanding journey 🔭 🧬 🔬🧪 🧫

[fxevolution @fxevolution]

Stocks don't bottom on good news, it's when things get less bad.

Stocks don't top on bad news, it's when things can't possibly get any better.

Few investors an traders understand this, price action and money flow is everything in these situations.

Follow the flow!

Going live in 8 minutes to discuss.

[DMT @iii_dmt]

https://t.co/ggSbRWeaL9

[DMT @iii_dmt]

@benjamincanac Will the Figma Kit for UI 3.2 also be open sourced and free?

[Michael Levin @drmichaellevin]

New paper out, amazing team @wyssinstitute - @DonIngber @mmsperry @anishvasan and many others

https://t.co/KhV3vWsHlV

"AI-enabled drug prediction and gene network analysis reveal therapeutic use of vorinostat for Rett Syndrome in preclinical models"

[David Shapiro (L/0) @DaveShapi]

A lot of people get tripped up on Post-Labor Economics. They say it's either hyper-capitalist or socialist. Likewise, I've been accused of being either right wing or ultra liberal.

Here's WHY it's hard to put PLE in one box:

Post-Labor Economics (PLE) is a framework addressing how economic and social systems would function if human labor is no longer the primary engine of production due to advances in AI and robotics. Rather than assuming work will simply change form, PLE explores the possibility that human labor could largely disappear, making work optional or scarce. The core philosophy involves decoupling livelihood from traditional employment by providing income derived from capital and technology, essentially making everyone a stakeholder in automated production. Without intervention, PLE theorists warn this could lead to extreme inequality where a small elite monopolizes automation gains while the majority faces poverty.

PLE shares several characteristics with socialist principles, particularly in its emphasis on broad wealth distribution and collective benefit. Like socialism, it advocates for decoupling income from labor, which aligns with socialist goals of freeing individuals from wage labor compulsion and echoes Marxist ideas of moving from necessity to freedom. The framework proposes mechanisms like automation dividends, universal property income, and collective ownership of AI assets through public wealth funds. These approaches mirror socialist concepts of public ownership of production means, now applied to intelligent machines, while directly addressing inequality by ensuring everyone receives a share of capital returns.

However, PLE differs significantly from traditional socialism by working within market economies rather than replacing them entirely. It harnesses capitalist tools like stocks, dividends, and ownership rights to build equity, framing universal income as property dividends rather than welfare transfers. The framework includes market-driven approaches like employee stock ownership plans and cooperatives, allowing decentralized ownership of productive assets. From a Keynesian perspective, PLE mechanisms maintain consumer demand by providing purchasing power, preventing underconsumption in high-output, low-wage automated economies.

PLE represents a hybrid framework that adapts capitalism to a post-labor world rather than abolishing it. Unlike traditional socialism's advocacy for complete state ownership, PLE aims to redistribute capital returns and democratize ownership within market structures. It seeks to balance private enterprise with guaranteed social rights, creating what could be called a social market approach. The framework leverages new technologies like blockchain and decentralized governance to ensure broad participation and accountability, often aligning with libertarian views on distributing power in digital ages.

The political appeal of PLE lies in its pragmatic approach to achieving social outcomes within existing systems rather than demanding complete overthrow. By framing dividends as shares of national prosperity or property rights, similar to Alaska's Permanent Fund, it can attract cross-ideological support. The framework attempts to avoid both the dystopian outcomes of unmanaged capitalism and the inflexibility of centralized command economies.

Ultimately, PLE proposes updating the social contract for an AI-driven world, transforming society from a wage-for-labor basis to a dividend-for-participation model where everyone becomes a mini-capitalist or co-owner of the automated economy. It aims to ensure that immense wealth generated by AI and robotics is shared broadly while preserving liberty and enabling human flourishing beyond traditional work, making technology serve the public good rather than concentrate power among a few.

[David Shapiro (L/0) @DaveShapi]

1) Outpace China (and everyone else) in innovation

2) Achieve abundance through technological innovation (historically, the best way to achieve abundance is capitalism + democracy + innovation)

3) Achieve indefinite lifespan with the help of AI (your chance of death without AI is 100%, your chance of death with AI is markedly lower)

e/acc is pro-life and pro-prosperity

Bonus: abundance reduces intraspecies violence, therefore growth will ultimately lead to world peace.

[Alex Albert @alexalbert__]

Heard that some eng teams at big co's are now are now testing their API designs against LLMs before release. They run evals to see which API structure is easiest for the model to work with and redesign it if the model struggles to understand the format.

I expect this to scale to all software designs in the future. You should start to think about building with models as your primary user.

[David Shapiro (L/0) @DaveShapi]

Post-Labor Economics in 8 minutes (with graphics!)

I'm exploring what I call post-labor economics, or "The Great Decoupling" - the irreversible separation of GDP growth from wage employment. This concept acknowledges that we're building institutions to convert productivity surpluses into broad property-based income streams, essentially freeing people from involuntary tedious labor while maintaining shared prosperity. In simpler terms, automation is going to eliminate most of our jobs, and we need to prepare for that reality.

The primary mechanism driving this transformation is labor substitution, where work shifts from humans to machines when those machines prove superior in being faster, cheaper, and safer. This isn't a new phenomenon - it's been the trajectory of human history for centuries, but it's dramatically accelerating with artificial intelligence and robotics representing the next major wave of automation. As these technologies become more sophisticated, we're seeing unprecedented levels of labor displacement across virtually every sector.

This creates what I call the economic agency paradox, perfectly captured in a meme I found: Step one, companies replace 90% of their workforce with AI, achieving the lowest operating costs in history. Step two, every other company follows suit. Step three, nobody can buy anyone's products because the entire customer base is now jobless. This paradox illustrates the fundamental contradiction at the heart of our current economic model when faced with mass automation.

To understand the solution, I need to examine where household income actually comes from. There are three primary sources: wages, property, and transfers. Currently, wages account for 60-80% of national income, but this percentage is slowly declining. Property income - including stocks, bonds, rental properties, and real estate - makes up about 20%. The remaining 20% comes from government transfers like Medicare, Social Security, and SNAP benefits, which are directly funded through taxation. As wage income evaporates due to automation, we must dramatically increase income from property and transfers.

However, I believe relying entirely on government transfers creates a dangerous dependency - essentially a welfare or client state where all your eggs are in one basket. If political winds shift and the opposing party decides to cut your UBI or universal benefits, you're left with no alternatives. This is why one of the keystone principles of post-labor economics is creating a distributed property-based future that doesn't rely solely on government largesse.

My vision for property-based income streams involves multiple complementary sources. First, we do need some level of UBI to provide a basic floor - this represents the government-funded, tax-based distribution component. Second, we need wealth funds operating at various scales: sovereign wealth funds at the national level, urban wealth funds for cities, and community investment trusts for local regions. These function like endowments, generating returns that get distributed to citizens simply by virtue of their residency or citizenship.

Third, I envision private collective property ownership through mechanisms like credit unions or decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). Instead of individuals buying expensive assets alone, people pool resources to collectively own data centers, robots, solar farms, fusion reactors, quantum computers, or any revenue-generating property. Fourth, traditional private wealth continues to exist - your personal stocks, bonds, company shares, and real estate remain important. Finally, I anticipate that roughly 20% of current wage employment might persist as residual wages, though this percentage could fluctuate based on how automation unfolds.

The deeper issue I'm addressing isn't purely economic - it's fundamentally about power and the social contract. Currently, civic society rests on four pillars: we the people (civilians and citizens), the state (government that ostensibly serves us), businesses, and banks. However, I observe that states increasingly serve corporate and financial interests rather than people's interests. While we're not going to eliminate businesses and banks anytime soon, we desperately need to rebalance this power dynamic.

Our economic agency traditionally rests on three pillars of power. Labor rights sit at the foundation because our ability to withhold labor represents one of our most fundamental levers of power. This labor power historically guaranteed our property rights and democratic rights. However, we're losing labor rights in two ways: they're already eroding under the current neoliberal regime, and they'll erode further as automation, AI, and robotics eliminate our intrinsic ability to leverage work as a source of power. When labor rights disappear, property rights and democratic rights inevitably follow.

This represents a crisis far beyond mere economics - it's about whether ordinary people retain any meaningful power in society. My solution involves replacing labor rights with what I call algorithmic rights as the new foundational pillar supporting property and democratic rights. Algorithmic rights encompass data sovereignty (controlling your personal data), algorithmic auditability (understanding how algorithms affect you), participatory algorithmic governance (having input into algorithmic systems), and algorithmic dividends and liability (sharing in the benefits and holding systems accountable for harms).

I believe blockchain technology is central to implementing this vision because it provides four crucial technological affordances. It's intrinsically democratic, allowing distributed decision-making rather than centralized control. It's inherently decentralized, preventing single points of failure or control. It's unstoppable - once deployed, blockchain networks can't be easily shut down by authorities. Most importantly, it's permissionless, meaning we don't need government approval to build these new economic and social structures.

The infrastructure for this transformation is already under development through blockchain networks, decentralized autonomous organizations, cryptocurrencies, central bank digital currencies, and digital identity wallets. While not yet fully mature, these technologies are laying the groundwork for a new social contract that could preserve human agency and prosperity in a post-labor world.

[David Shapiro (L/0) @DaveShapi]

o3-pro thinks that Codex might have helped optimize CUDA???

Just a hypothesis. But it researched this problem for >13 minutes.

[David Shapiro (L/0) @DaveShapi]

I'm coming around on CDBC (if implemented correctly) as a major component of building a solarpunk future.

It turns out that losing the critical pillar of labor power is catastrophic to creating a civil society (no surprise there) but even harder is *replacing* that pillar of equilibrium with something else.

Data, algorithms, blockchain, and crypto keep coming up in more and more and more of my research.

I am increasingly convinced that the Civic Operating System of the future is predicated on crypto, blockchain, and adjacent technologies (identity wallets, etc).

[Wes Roth @WesRoth]

OpenAI has an internal AlphaEvolve?
(Or a similar recursive system)

@DaveShapi asked the right question!

@idontexist_nn implies something about Codex and an Adaptive Learning Intelligence Companion Engine

as Sam said we are in the "larval stages of recursive self improvement"

[Wes Roth @WesRoth]

Hassabis emphasizes the power of combining general AI techniques with domain-specific knowledge, especially in areas like medicine and protein research, as seen in AlphaFold.

He believes solving real-world scientific problems today is just as important as chasing AGI.

To get there, he says we need to scale, specialize, experiment, and keep pushing both foundational and experimental research forward.

[David Shapiro (L/0) @DaveShapi]

We are converging.

UBI is only part of the equation, but maybe even only a stopgap.

What we really need is a solarpunk participatory ownership based economy.

This is the way.

[David Shapiro (L/0) @DaveShapi]

Guys I have bad news.

Extraordinarily bad news.

We have 30 to 50 years before we get to full Post-Labor Economics.

The bottleneck isn't intelligence, or even robotics.

It's economic scale.

We ran all the numbers, and ran them again.

The primary question: "how long does it take to build a billion humanoid robots?"

Even if we double production capacity every 3 years, it takes two decades.

But there are multiple constraints: rare earth metals for batteries, actuators, and sensors are the biggest one by far.

Next is economies of scale.

For comparison, it took 92 years for the automobile to reach full saturation: 1900 to 1992. Now, we had a car culture by the 1950s... But that's still five decades and two industrial wars worth of innovation.

We did everything we could to speed it up: pneumatic hybrid robots are a no go. Air tanks need to be swapped every 20-30 minutes.

The ONE saving grace might be exotic actuators like electropolymer muscles. Right now, they just aren't strong enough. BUT, if we can make them stronger and cheaper, our petrochemical industrial base could accelerate the deployment of humanoid robots by a decade or two.

So what does this mean?

We'll hit AGI and ASI long before we can automate away all human labor. We might even hit the Singularity before we can scale up enough robots to replace all jobs.

Here's my current timeline:

2025 to 2030: Collapse of knowledge work. The "KVM Rule" applies: any job you can do entirely with a keyboard, video, and mouse will be fully replaced.

2030 to 2040: Droid scaling up starts to really make a dent.

2040 to 2060: We'll finally reach global labor substitution with robots.

What does this mean? There are a few jobs that are going to stick around for the foreseeable future:

1. Skilled labor. Robots will be able to do your job as a mechanic or welder very soon. However, there simply won't be enough robots to go around.

2. High Accountability Jobs: doctors, lawyers, comptrollers, financial advisors - all jobs that require license, insurance, and accountability. Also called statutory jobs (law requires a human or does not contemplate non-human labor)

3. Meaning Jobs: authenticity and sentimental premium. Celebrities, performers, influencers, athletes, priests, philosophers, and some educators, caretakers, etc

4. Complex Relationship Jobs: politicians, diplomats, negotiators, governance, account executive.

5. Capitalists. The ownership class will be fine. Always is.

So what can you do?

Upskill and reskill. Join the meaning economy or get into skilled trades. All you smart desk jockeys would make great HVAC techs, mechanics, linemen, and more. But just keep in mind you're going to have a lot of stiff competition.

There are a few silver linings to this news:

FIRST it means that we have longer to adapt to total economic upset. Yes, AI and robots will hypothetically be able to take all jobs within 5 years, but human bodies are still more abundant, more portable, and more energy efficient. This is a VERY deep moat.

SECOND it means that a Terminator style takeover is economically impossible. MIL-SPEC and NIST standards mean that ASI can't hack our hardware and even if we have a few AI bots, tanks and aircraft, humans win on sheer volume for many decades to come - more than long enough to solve alignment.

HOWEVER it means we'll have ordinary jobs for a lot longer than we'd like. Deployment will be uneven, so some economies will saturate with robots sooner than others.

BUT this gives PLE an avenue. Create ESOP and cooperatives that own a bunch of robots. That means we collectively buy, own, and operate robots for everything from construction to leasing to businesses, and we collect the rent. Or we tax the crap out of them.

What do you think? Can we figure out a faster way to ramp up humanoid robot production or are we doomed to skilled and unskilled blue collar work for the next generation?

[Obsidian @obsdmd]

Obsidian is now free for work.

Starting today, the Obsidian Commercial license is optional. Anyone can use Obsidian for work, for free. If Obsidian benefits your organization, you can still purchase Commercial licenses to support development.

Nothing else is changing. No account required, no ads, no tracking, no strings attached. Your data remains fully in your control, stored locally in plain text Markdown files. All features are available to you for free without limits.

Why make this change? Simplicity. The Commercial license terms were confusing and added unnecessary complexity to our pricing. Furthermore, as the Obsidian Manifesto states: "we believe that everyone should have the tools to think clearly and organize ideas effectively". This change brings us closer to that principle.

People in over 10,000 organizations use Obsidian. Many work in high-security environments, like government, cybersecurity, and finance. Some of the largest organizations in the world, including Amazon and Google, have thousands of employees using Obsidian every day. These teams rely on Obsidian to think more effectively and keep total ownership over private data.

Previously, people at companies with two or more employees were required to purchase a Commercial license to use Obsidian for work. Going forward, the Commercial license is no longer required, but remains an optional way for organizations to support Obsidian, similar to the Catalyst license for individuals.

Organizations that support Obsidian are now featured on the Obsidian Enterprise page. Your organization can be showcased by purchasing 25 licenses or more.

Along with Commercial and Catalyst support, our add-on services, Sync and Publish help Obsidian remain 100% user-supported. In the future, we hope to offer more services designed for teams. As always, these will be optional.

[DMT @iii_dmt]

@DaveShapi @NPCollapse

[DMT @iii_dmt]

@FinFluentialx https://t.co/stPxRkF6VK

[Joscha Bach @Plinz]

AI alignment that tries to force systems that are more coherent than human minds to follow an incoherent set of values, locked in by a set of anti-jailbreaking tricks, is probably going to fail

[David Shapiro (L/0) @DaveShapi]

This is the biggest and best news in AI safety, alignment, and the future of humanity EVER.

Tomorrow's video is going to be spicy.

The singularity is going to be something to behold.

You're all so lucky to be here.