Vic Vega

There are weeks when decades happen. Bayesian, investor, volatility researcher. Building the future of prediction derivatives @ Hypervolic. Coming soon.

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

@vulpesvulpes9 Ok so what’s the answer to this objection?

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

@Orlando74180344 @ArmandDoma Feel like NVDA is a strong buy either way

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

@therupiahlobby @JeppeKirkBonde @smatta1701 Ineffective selfishness is the common state of man throughout much of history, and it generally leads to outcomes that are poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

The question of whom someone is funded by is materially relevant information. It doesn’t prove anything by itself, but it’s quite important to know when assessing a speaker’s credibility.

Does rationalism require that we reject informed critical analysis of a claimant’s potential motivations—and even object to others sharing such information—in the interest of focusing purely on the semantic content of their words? That doesn’t seem like epistemic rigor to me.

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

They’re calling you a low decoupler for this, and it goes to show the limits of the decoupling meme (and perhaps also why autistic rationalists have not been good at politics as a ratio of their wealth). High decoupling is a good norm for intellectual discussion, but it’s basically an exercise in good faith, whereas the political sphere is full of actors who will say all the right things—perhaps even true things—in the ruthless pursuit of power claims.

Normies and especially leftists are not exactly “wrong” to be low-decouplers. Low decoupling is basically adaptive in all but the most rarefied intellectual spheres. Descriptively, human language is not primarily a vehicle for rational argumentation in the interest of arriving at truth, it’s a tool that people use to get what they want, and it’s perfectly rational to recognize this fact pattern.

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

@epekeina0 Landsharkian, even

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

@alz_zyd_ The emerging consensus seems to be that after its brief moment in the sun, data science is now simply dead as a field.

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

@Sokio8D >hedge fund quant
>jane street

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

@LVBookie @ChristopherHale @powellAtlantic @petersterne Maybe because of the 9/11 happening in the background?

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

@aaaronson Where’s MEaine?

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

@Reddened64 @TrevMcKendrick You just made up that implication because you hate the NYT.

[Michael Booth @_MichaelBooth_]

@tysonbrody That plus the ability to easily share headlines without the accompanying text. If you were to share a physical headline it was just as easy to cut out the whole article. This NYT piece ends with the main Kenyan worker contemplating his regrets about not entering a "real" indursty

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

@EliLanger

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

@birth_of_state @a_musingcat Yes, conflict is deeply natural, and the natural response of parties to a conflict is not to roll over and lose, even if they are outmatched. Yet you are proposing that we accept our obsolescence, as if that’s natural. No, the natural meta in evolutionary conflict is to struggle.

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

@JeremyNoronha I think it’s because LLM addicts become solipsistic, which is what drives the “AI psychosis” phenomenon. The terminally online, whatever their faults, are subject to rapid feedback from real humans, so their failure modes tend to involve groupthink, insularity, sectarianism, etc.

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

My reading is that “rare people” are uncommon but in distribution, whereas “unique people” are truly singular, one-of-one, like Napoleon. Thus the point is that most successes involve the former type of guy: the relatively uncommon person who leverages a singularly exceptional environment. I agree that it could be clearer though.

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

@arunarunnomi @s0ulglitched In that case it sounds like their response here is completely reasonable.

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

@StefanFSchubert Both James C. Scott and David Graeber are “anarchist anthropologists” of some description, so it makes sense that their theories would converge somewhat.

Even so, Scott’s empirical findings and the plausibility of his arguments are a cut above Graeber’s ideological fabrications.

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

@bryan_caplan Much like how the long option buyer “prepays” the short position in the form of a premium, and only collects if it ends up in the money.

However in this case the prepaying optimist is effectively short vol (nothing ever happens) whereas the doomer is long vol (end of the world).

[Vic Vega @volatistics]

@thecurioustales >"Don't think about a white bear."

>But every subject failed. The harder they suppressed the thought, the more the white bear invaded their mind.

Ironic Process Theory is just the Waluigi Effect for humans.