@superaicoach: empowering individuals and small businesses to leverage AI. Swarm Theory https://xitter.cf/t.co/oRbfYXYWAM

Philadelphia, PA
Joined August 2009
Andrew Levine retweeted
I am going to write something below that should be seen as the musings of one who celebrated – and still celebrates – Lula’s victory over Bolsonaro Jr. Here it goes: I cannot for the life of me justify why o why Brazil’s courts had to demand of Bolsonaro that he hands over his passport the moment he lost the election. That he disputed the veracity of the election result is a sign of a faulty character, evidence that he is a bad loser. BUT, he had every right to being a bad loser; to dispute, rightly or wrongly, any result. As for the argument that he was being investigated for other misdemeanours or crimes, that doesn’t wash either: What would have happened if Bolsonaro had won the election? Would the judges also prevent him from travelling abroad, as President-elect? I very much doubt that – which means that the judges were conflating executive and judicial powers. To those who tell me that the Bolsonaro clan is a fascistic, criminal family, my reply is: You and I may very well think that. Alas, the judiciary has no right to use its powers to indict and to pursue someone because – or immediately after – they lost an election. It is shameful, to be precise. And it is also dangerous for those of us on the left who know what it means to be banned and hounded by rogue judges and police commissioners. But I also have a message to Bolsonaro supporters, or those sitting on the fence, who assume that Lula is somehow behind the judges. He is not! This is the same court that imprisoned, falsely, Lula himself. What we have in Brazil is a judiciary that overreaches and habitually crosses the line that ought to separate judicial from political power. It is such a shame that a judge took it upon himself to go after Bolsonaro on the eve of his defeat and, in doing so, to sully Lula’s stupendous victory. One last point that my comrades in Brazil should note: If Bolsonaro and Rubio wanted to mount a campaign against Lula and Brazilian democracy they could never have been aided better than by that judge’s reckless writ.
WHAT LULA’S RE-ELECTION TELLS US: The Class War Need Not End in Fascism On Sunday, Brazilians did something that the commentariat had told us was a lost cause. On the eve of his eighty-first birthday, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a former metalworker, turned the Trumpist, evangelical, neofascist, Zionist tide in Latin America to get re-elected President of Brazil. Three weeks earlier, he had come second in the first round, behind Flávio Bolsonaro, son and political heir of the man who trumpeted the merits of fascism, who had embraced Trump as his lord and master, who plotted a cynical coup against Brazilian democracy – moreover, the main candidates that were eliminated were rightists whose voters were meant to move to Bolsonaro. Yesterday, Lula overturned this deficit and won with a margin of nearly four and a half million votes. I want to use Lula’s victory to tell a broader story. A story about a war, the class war that the few are waging against the many across the Western world. And a story about how that war need not end, as so many now fear, in a neofascist revival. THE HIDDEN CLASS WAR “There’s class warfare, all right,” Warren Buffett once said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” Mr Buffett was not exaggerating. For almost four decades, Western governments and central banks have pulled every policy lever in the same direction: to make the assets of the few burgeon at the expense of the incomes of the many. Consider the numbers. Between 1952 and 1988, economic growth explained nearly all the gains of the West’s stock market. From 1989 onwards, growth explains only about a quarter. The largest share, around 40 per cent, came from income diverted from workers to shareholders. Another third came from cheaper money and lower perceived risk. That is not wealth creation. It is wealth extraction: a transfer from those who work to those who own, inflated by cheap money and paraded on the evening news as “a strong economy”. Then look at the rescues. 2001, 2008, 2020, the British gilt crisis of 2022, Silicon Valley Bank in 2023: each time, the state rushed in to save the asset holders. Together they reveal the rule: to save the economy, you must save the wealth of those who own it – not those who produce stuff, not even productive companies. In the United States, the top tenth own almost 90 per cent of all shares. The Fed and the US federal government insure it for them, doing ‘whatever it takes’ to prop them up whenever their prices tank. The rest of us in the West pay the premium, in the form of the austerity that always follows the bailout. And the owners need never sell. Why do billionaires pay so little tax? Because they do not earn incomes - they accumulate capital gains, taxed only when sold. So they borrow against their soaring assets at 1 or 2 per cent and live on the loan. Then they die and pay no tax on their capital gains, passing on the loot to their kids at ridiculously low inheritance taxes. Meanwhile, to pay bills and put food on the table, the worker borrows on a credit card at 20 per cent, her debts the mirror image of their fortunes. Then, a large chunk of these accumulating assets seek even higher rents in places like Brazil where the US government intervenes to ensure that the local governments will also place the defence of these assets’ values above all else. CAPITAL IS NOT A THING, NOT MERELY AN ASSET Why does austerity keep returning, even though it is economically self-defeating? Marx tells the story of Thomas Peel, who in 1829 sailed to Western Australia’s Swan River with £50,000 of provisions and three hundred working-class men, women and children. On arrival, his workers walked off into the bush and worked for themselves. Peel had brought money, tools and labour, but he could not bring capitalism along, because his workers had an alternative. Capital, Marx concluded, is not a thing but a social relation: the power of those who own to get those who don’t own to do things they’d rather did not do. Austerity is not an economic policy. It is a disciplinary device, keeping the many sufficiently insecure and indebted to accept whatever is on offer. The ruling class’s deepest fear is not inflation or debt. It is to end up like Peel: rich, but without the power to compel. IS FASCISM INEVITABLE? Here is the part of the story that keeps so many of us awake at night. When centre-left politicians, from Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Tony Blair to Gerhard Schröder, Francois Hollande and Andy Burnham abandoned the language of class, a void opened up in the working-class heartlands of the West. Into that void stepped a venomous storyteller with a century of experience in filling such voids: the recalcitrant far right, the rebranded fascists. They offer left-behind workers a story of dignity, then redirect their fury away from the owner who shipped their factory abroad or sold their council house to some fund and towards the migrant next door. It does not end the class war. It merely divides one side – the workers – to rule over them. It camouflages it. From the red suburbs of Paris to south Piraeus, from England’s red wall to Italy’s rust belt in Taranto, from the American rust belt to eastern Germany, the pattern seems relentless. And so, a fatalism has set in: the class war waged from above, we are told, must inevitably end in a neofascist, racist, misogynist revival. Brazil has just refuted this fatalism. Brazil knows the monster intimately. It lived through four years of Jair Bolsonaro, with his nostalgia for the military dictatorship. On 8 January 2023, his followers stormed the Congress, the Supreme Court and the presidential palace. Brazil’s far right is not a fringe. Unlike Trump’s rag tag storm troopers, they had years of running a dictatorship. It won the first round of this election. They had the White House fully behind them, while the US Democrats, once again demonstrating their irrelevance, stayed mute. And yet, yesterday, they were defeated. How? Not by hand-wringing about “populism”, nor by a centrist promise to manage the status quo more efficiently. Lula won because he did what the Western centre-left forgot how to do: he spoke the language of class, and backed it with policies that shifted power, however modestly, from the few to the many. His government exempted those earning up to five thousand reals a month from income tax and paid for it with a minimum tax on the very richest. During Brazil’s G20 presidency, it proposed a global minimum tax on billionaires. When Lula tells Brazilian workers that the elites have rigged the game, he points his finger upwards, at the rentier and the speculator, not sideways, at the migrant or the poor. PIX – AN EXAMPLE OF AN ANTI-OLIGARCHY DIGITAL TOOL But the most innovative weapon in Brazil’s arsenal is one that few outside Latin America have heard of. It is called Pix. Every time you tap a card to pay for a coffee, a toll is levied. Visa, Mastercard and the banks take a cut, often 2 or 3 per cent, from every transaction. Multiply this by billions of purchases a day and you grasp one of the most lucrative rent-extraction machines ever devised. These are not profits made in competitive markets but rent extracted by those who own the digital rails on which our economic lives now run. It is part of what I call technofeudalism. Unlike Britain, Europe or, of course, America, Brazil’s central bank moved to limit this rabid exploitation. It launched an alternative: a public, instant payment system, free for individuals and with capped fees for merchants. A Brazilian pays a street vendor in Salvador or sends money to her mother in Recife, instantly, using Pix from her phone, with no card company or bank taking its slice. Brazilians took to it with astonishing enthusiasm. Last year, Pix processed almost 80 billion transactions and overtook credit cards as the most popular way to pay online. Pix is, in effect, the Swan River of the digital age. It gave tens of millions of Brazilians, including the poorest, who had never had a bank card, an alternative to the toll booths of Big Finance. And, like Peel, the toll collectors did not take it lying down. This summer, Washington imposed 25 per cent tariffs on most Brazilian exports, and its trade representative explicitly named Pix as a grievance, complaining that it “unfairly disadvantaged” American payment companies! The most powerful government on Earth deployed its trade arsenal against a free public service for being too successful at denying rents to Visa and Mastercard. Lula did not blink. He defended Pix as a Brazilian public good, and Brazilians rewarded him for it. Here, at last, is a concrete example of limiting the power of Big Business, Big Finance and Big Tech: not with slogans, but by building public digital infrastructure that removes the opportunity to extract rent in the first place. NOT A REVOLUTION, BUT AN AUSPICIOUS PORTENT Let me not romanticise. Lula is no revolutionary. His margin was narrow. Brazil’s Congress remains in the grip of agribusiness and evangelical blocs. Its central bank still keeps interest rates punishingly high, a weapon of the class war if ever there was one. Lula himself has compromised much too much with these vested interests, and lost support as a result. But Brazil has shown three things the rest of us must learn. First, the class war waged against the many does not have to end in fascism. Fascism wins only when the left vacates the battlefield of class. Second, a progressive government can win by pointing upwards, at those who extract rent, rather than downwards, at those who suffer. And third, Big Business can be defeated, at least forced to lose some battles, by building public alternatives to its rent-extracting machines. So, here is the challenge to Britain, to Europe, to the people of the United States. -Build your own Pix: public payment rails that end the tolls of Visa and Mastercard. -Tax capital gains, ill-gotten wealth that is, not just income. -Make every rescue conditional, with the public receiving real, permanent equity in return. -Create a public investment bank as an alternative to the bond markets. Restore the bargaining power of the workforce. And give working people what Peel’s workers found at Swan River: an alternative, and the freedom to say no. Buffett was right. There is a class war, and his class has been winning hands down. But yesterday, in Brazil, it lost a battle though not the war. It lost because a working-class president dared to name the war and fight it using weapons fashioned to defend the many. unherd.com/2026/10/why-lula-…
320
246
67
1,571
189,696
Andrew Levine retweeted
>Millenarianism, a belief that we are on the cusp of a total transformation of society, is a known way that people go crazy on the contrary, the “end of the world” is a highly convergent belief that shows up in every generation, and seems to keep people sane / lets them find purpose in a complex world. if the world is ending, it makes your next steps very clear: you better do everything you can to stop it from ending, and if that’s not possible you need to make things right for when you meet your Maker
85
27
12
741
54,194
Andrew Levine retweeted
say it with me now. experts are fake, smart generalists rule the world, everything is designed by people no smarter than you, and courage is in shorter supply than genius
140
1,788
306
12,926
Andrew Levine retweeted
i love writing. i never let agents write for me. whether it's docs, or tweets, or shitposts, or even prompts (okay maybe that one's harder as agents manage other agents) there's a simple reason for that: i still strongly believe that writing is thinking. it's a skill i hope to never give up. it's also important to me that whatever i say is always authentic, mistakes and all. my favorite posts are the ones that i just full send without any editing i suspect it also helps with prompting. being able to clearly express what i want, and knowing the vocabulary i need to be able to direct my agents does seem to make for more effective usage of agents. in the same way that engineers have an advantage when we prompt agents to write code, because we are intimately familiar with the words that make up the discipline knowing the right word incantations to get an agent to produce a desired goal almost feels like spellcasting. as models get more capable, and that input box looks more and more like a magic box that can output anything, words become the interface between you and the genie there may come a time when we give up the keyboard in exchange for brain-computer interfaces. but until then, i'm writing every word.
502
563
209
8,437
424,988
Andrew Levine retweeted
Mostly an intuition that biological life has innate value that cannot be artificially replicated. But I’m far from certain, and what creeps me out are the people on here who *already* seem eager to permanently cede the rights of known living things (humans, animals, biosphere) in a misguided worship of something that is only a mimicry of life. “Beware false idols” persisted in the bible for good reason!
Replying to @Liv_Boeree
Why do you say AIs probably aren’t sentient?
65
15
6
285
31,596
Andrew Levine retweeted
the "Hard Problem" in a nutshell: 1. atoms aren't conscious 2. humans are made of atoms 3. humans are conscious 4. so at least one of 1-3 must be false Panpsychists say #1 is false Dualists say #2 is false Illusionists say #3 is false Materialists say #4 is false
1,159
564
427
9,454
1,959,154
Andrew Levine retweeted
People who are moderately technical but highly creative will benefit the most from adopting AI early. Eventually, these companies are going to figure out how to wrap it up so cleanly that everyone will be able to digest it and leverage it with zero effort, but for now, there’s a small learning curve. But it’s not even hard man. You just have to give a tiny little bit of a shit, and you can figure it all out by talking to your AI.
9
8
72
2,834
The doomers are cowardly neurotics whose abstractions divorce them from practice, and the accelerationists are naive utopians with far more ambition than wisdom, but together they reincarnate the generative tension that has for millennia catalyzed Western memetic adaptation.
8
9
1
93
2,110
The frontier should be paced,... by clear and obvious liability. stop pretending this is special or complicated
17
13
1
85
8,928
Andrew Levine retweeted
A very interesting insight.
22
26
4
164
17,054
Andrew Levine retweeted
Eisman is correct that frontier labs are trying to use this moment to enter into partnerships with each other and the government on terms favorable to ownership. The power grab feels similar to those in 2008 and 2001, except this one is premised on preempting a crisis. Where he's wrong is that the crisis is "manufactured." The strategy at the leading labs has essentially been to spend as much money as possible, as quickly as possible, in the hope of reaching superintelligence and recursive self-improvement before they go bankrupt. Concerns that they may run out of money before they reach superintelligence are prompting the leadership at these companies to enter into some form of partnership with the government. I think what we are witnessing and seeing in the last few days through some of these public statements and proposals, like Amodei’s “We Must Pace the Frontier,” is evidence of a negotiation over the terms of that partnership, in which there appear to be four main counterparties: (1) the new monied interests, made up mostly of financial and tech elite who built their fortunes over the last 30 years through multiple expansions of the Internet revolution, including Web 2.0, Crypto, and A.I. (2) the national security state, which is primarily concerned with maintaining American primacy and technological and military superiority over China and the rest of the world. (3) the political class, which has become increasingly corrupted and beholden to the monied interests that hold the purse strings. (4) the citizenry, which has been dumbed down by an adversarial and poorly incentivized media environment and disempowered through a multi-decade erosion in civil liberties and through the maldistribution of national wealth via corporate and elite welfare. Concerns around A.I. risk are warranted, as were concerns about a deflationary depression in 2008 and further acts of terrorism in 2001. AND those concerns are being exploited to crystallize an oligopoly, neo-feudal economy, and security state in which the gains of the last 30 years of technological disruption, free trade, and financial engineering are protected from further disruption. People with modest or even substantial wealth tied up in the stock market are expected to passively consent, even if the prospects for their children, who will live out their lives in a plutocracy and patronage state, are pretty dire, because the alternative has immediate material consequences. The public (we) appear to be largely absent from these negotiations. Again, NONE of this should be grounds for complacency. I think the advancement in capabilities we are seeing is alarming. In many ways, what has come out of the reporting over the last few months confirms many of the thought experiments around the alignment and AI control problems put forward by the AI risk community going back a very long time.
15
29
8
185
35,750
Andrew Levine retweeted
i often think about this…
266
8,355
227
74,298
1,484,523
Andrew Levine retweeted
Minds are not physical and cannot exist in the physical universe, for the same reason that Minecraft is not physical and cannot exist in the physical universe. Physics has nothing meaningful to say about consciousness. Minds require universes with different laws than physics.
223
87
42
998
83,164
Andrew Levine retweeted
Go back to live debate and oral exams
even Sam Altman is confused by how education hasn't significantly changed at all since ChatGPT came out: "if we continue to teach students as if we were in a pre-AGI world, it's gonna lead to an atrophy of critical thinking."
4
11
5
142
47,784
Andrew Levine retweeted
Politics is mostly just one group of cooked emotional idiots making up shit to counter the made up shit from the other group of cooked emotional idiots. And then there’s the other 95% of people who are too busy and just want to make a bag and mute the 5% who won’t stfu and act normal.
14
2
47
2,024
Andrew Levine retweeted
This is extremely important: civilization was enabled by a 6C spike in temperature above the glacial norm of the last 2 million years. It’s a “Goldilocks” temperature where much hotter or colder makes civilization impossible. At 1.5C hotter, civilization could fail.
The 3 Million Year Context The Quaternary glacial cycle — inaugurated approximately 2.6 million years ago with the intensification of Northern Hemisphere glaciation — established a planetary rhythm in which glacial conditions were the baseline state and interglacials were brief, anomalous departures. Across the last 2.6 million years, the planet has spent roughly 80–90% of its time in full glacial or near-glacial conditions, with interglacials representing narrow thermal spikes averaging 10,000–15,000 years in duration before orbital forcing returned the system to its cold baseline. The entire infrastructure of complex human civilization — agriculture, urban settlement, coastal infrastructure, stable river systems, predictable monsoon patterns, the specific biodiversity configuration that supports current food webs — was built during and is calibrated to an anomalous ~10% condition that the planet's recent deep history treats as a transient exception rather than a stable state. This is a point of extraordinary importance that almost never appears in mainstream climate framing. The Holocene is not the normal condition of the current Earth system. It is a brief thermal excursion from a glacial baseline that persisted for millions of years — and civilization didn't just arise during this excursion, it is constitutively dependent on conditions that have no long-term precedent in the Quaternary record.
46
73
4
205
16,809
Andrew Levine retweeted
This is important. People think the Nobel Prize in Economics is politically impartial. In fact it isn’t, and it isn’t even a Nobel Prize. It was invented by the Swedish Central Bank when it was fighting social democratic economic policies in Sweden. Critics of neoclassical economics are equally excluded. It’s a tribal award.
Replying to @haugejostein
The Nobel Prize in Economics is not an actual prize as Nobel himself said economics is not an actual science but a political tool. Its real name is actually The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel created by banks. youtu.be/P1GvaYbfXHY?si=oXw_…
31
302
12
863
40,595