@AderaState I've done about 3 different orders in the past couple weeks, I love the product I just hope the shipping issues get worked out, kinda of off putting on wanting to try different products. ☹️
Major Liqwid x H.A.L. Giveaway!💧
🌊 100 H.A.L. whitelist spots & 1 Rare $hal SubHandle to Giveaway!
🌊 10K Multi-asset H.A.L. NFT Packs & 100 Legendary $handle Tickets
Liqwid x $handle Background!💲🏄♂️
💧 LIKE & REPOST
💧 FOLLOW @adahandle
💧 Drop your $handle ⬇️
Oh look! A video from April 2017, showing (1:36-3:30)how to CREATE A WALLET (PRIVATE KEY) & THEN REDEEM USING THE REDEMPTION CERTIFICATE
Tldr
No. The presale participants DIDN'T receive private keys. (They had to create it)
Anyone clinging to that narrative is confused or lying
I finally got around to reviewing this paper and it's as bad as I thought it would be.
1. Zero data or evidence. Just "we guessed right in the past, so trust me bro" even though they provide no evidence that they guessed right in the past. So, that's their grounding.
2. They used their imagination to repeatedly ask "what happens next" based on.... well their imagination. No empirical data, theory, evidence, or scientific consensus. (Note, this by a group of people who have already convinced themselves that they alone possess the prognostic capability to know exactly how as-yet uninvented technology will play out)
3. They pull back at the end saying "We're not saying we're dead no matter what, only that we might be, and we want serious debate" okay sure.
4. The primary mechanism they propose is something that a lot of us have already discussed (myself included, which I dubbed TRC or Terminal Race Condition). Which, BTW, I first published a video about on June 13, 2023 - almost a full 2 years ago. So this is nothing new for us AI folks, but I'm sure they didn't cite me.
5. They make up plausible sounding, but totally fictional concepts like "neuralese recurrence and memory" (this is dangerous handwaving meant to confuse uninitiated - this is complete snakeoil)
6. In all of their thought experiments, they never even acknowledge diminishing returns or negative feedback loops. They instead just assume infinite acceleration with no bottlenecks, market corrections or other pushbacks. For instance, they fail to contemplate that corporate adoption is critical for the investment required for infinite acceleration. They also fail to contemplate that military adoption (and that acquisition processes) also have tight quality controls. They just totally ignore these kinds of constraints.
7. They do acknowledge that some oversight might be attempted, but hand-wave it away as inevitably doomed. This sort of "nod and shrug" is the most attention they pay to anything that would totally shoot a hole in their "theory" (I use the word loosely, this paper amounts to a thought experiment that I'd have posted on YouTube, and is not as well thought through). The only constraint they explicitly acknowledge is computing constraints.
8. Interestingly, I actually think they are too conservative on their "superhuman coders". They say that's coming in 2027. I say it's coming later this year.
Ultimately, this paper is the same tripe that Doomers have been pushing for a while, and I myself was guilty until I took the white pill.
Overall, this paper reads like "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas." It also makes the baseline assumption that "fast AI is dangerous AI" and completely ignores the null hypothesis: that superintelligent AI isn't actually a problem. They are operating entirely from the assumption, without basis, that "AI will inevitably become superintelligent, and that's bad."
Link to my Terminal Race Condition video below (because receipts).
Guys, we've been over this before. It's time to move the argument forward.
Ok, so here goes .... I have been somewhat vague and have attempted make these latest predictions seem like they could be explained by some system or knowledge of markets. This is not true. The truth is that I have a very specific prediction based on memories of something that happened 30 years ago, combined with thoughts which seem ever present in my mind. If Bitcoin were to close at 84,000 on March 14th, it will "run the table". I am not certain what that means ... I have a couple thoughts but there's no point unless somehow it actually closes at 84,000 today.
The truth is that I am becoming convinced that it may well do just that, and that the impossible odds of such a thing occurring means that I will have some explaining to do. If this occurs, I will likely take the rest of the month off and reach out to family members to let them know what I am planning to reveal. Believe me, I hope I am wrong about this because some people are definitely going to view me as mentally ill if they are non-believers or heretical if they are people of faith.