transhumanism, transindustrialism

Queenstown-Lakes District
Joined December 2015
The science communication problem is important here too. We’ve used peer review journals for centuries now (Nature started in 1869, the Royal Society journal (PT) was 17th century). Blockchains are the obvious substrate for permanence, verifiable, etc
Announcing three major scientific discoveries, one each in mathematics (harmonic analysis), computer science (complexity theory), and physics (quantum field theory). AI starting to help us improve our understanding of the universe! openai.com/index/building-sc…
2
3
252
In print times, scarcity was number of papers published (say 10 papers per issue, 4 issues per year). Job of journal editors was to find those top 40 papers in the field each year [to publish]
1
35
But post ai (and digital) the real scarcity is reader attention. Maybe you, the median member of each field (a journal is a club), can read 40 papers per year. Job of editors is still the same. Find the 40 best papers [to read]
29
Jason Potts retweeted
Terrific book
12
16
1
127
7,686
The future is looking a lot like a few who can responsibly mentally employ the capabilities of AI, an increasingly behind luddite class, and a massive psychosis life-neutering chasm between them. Like the people who cannot master cocaine, and those who can.
48
79
11
1,224
36,992
New species of hacker just dropped
This paper answers why can’t you remember being a baby? For over a century, science said you can't remember being a baby because your infant brain was just too "immature" to record anything. researchers assumed your hard drive was basically turned off for the first two years of life. But this wild paper from Yale completely rewrites how we understand human memory.. Researchers literally put awake babies (between 4 and 25 months old) into an fMRI scanner to watch their brains process new visual experiences in real-time. and what they found is mindblowing.. the infant hippocampus isn't turned off at all. it is actively firing, capturing, and encoding episodic memories. they proved that babies with higher hippocampal activity during a new experience formed a highly stable memory trace. the babies are recording the data. the memory of your first birthday, your first steps, the exact layout of the room you slept in.. it was all successfully saved to your brain. so why can't you remember it? the paper concludes that infantile amnesia isn't an "encoding" problem.. it is a "retrieval" problem. your brain recorded everything perfectly. but as you grew, your brain underwent massive developmental shifts, like explosive neurogenesis (the rapid birth of new neurons), which completely restructured your neural networks. the pathways to access those early files got buried or locked away. you didn't fail to make the memories.. you just lost the encryption key to open them. somewhere deep in your hippocampus, the exact first-person memory of being a 1-year-old might still be sitting there. you just can't access the file anymore.. the human brain is terrifyingly beautiful.
140
The unfortunate reality is that every biohack in the universe gets completely obliterated by doing sprints 3x a week and it's not even close
173
353
49
16,882
1,018,311
Jason Potts retweeted
My general advice for using AI for any purpose is to ask yourself: "how do I make what I am doing even more ambitious?" You do this until you either hit a wall and then you know the shape of the frontier (useful!) or you find out that the AI can do more than you think (common!)
376
157
88
2,208
182,251
Magnificent essay by @vgr “The crucial economic question then becomes not how much intelligence people can produce, but how much intelligence they can find uses for.” this is the future of universities - to lead discovery of the uses of intelligence open.substack.com/pub/contra…
1
7
58
2,540
The ugly truth about France and some of the other European countries currently in turmoil - and which none of the politicians want to admit because it'd be political suicide - is that you can't solve the problem by going after immigrants (as the right asserts) or the rich (as the left asserts), but you could solve it by going after the old. One extraordinary statistic for you: people over 60 in France, a quarter of the population, own 60% of France's wealth, non-financial and financial (ofce.fr/pdf/revue/2025/3-192…). And here is another crazy statistic: that same quarter of the population, those above 60, receive nearly two-thirds of all social spending by the French government (previssima.fr/actualite/prot…) - which is famously among the highest in the world (France's government spending is an insane 57.3% of GDP). Last statistic: they make up about 40% of voters because they're a third of registered voters (insee.fr/fr/statistiques/266…), and they turn out far more than anyone else (franceinfo.fr/elections/sond…). Put our 3 statistics together and there's almost a bit of an apartheid situation here: the old own most of the country's wealth, collect most of the social spending and have the political power to keep it that way. Which makes them a de-facto rentier class, living off assets and transfers paid for by younger generations. And, of course, at the risk of stating a truism, the future is built by the young. Yet France keeps effectively taking money away from them to give it to those whose working lives are already behind them - and need the money far less since they already own the country's wealth. What about inheritance, I hear you ask? That's the funniest/saddest aspect: given that life expectancy has kept rising, the French now inherit a home at 54 on average. The most common case is someone in their 80s leaving it to heirs in their 50s, in effect the very old transferring wealth to the about-to-be old (insee.fr/fr/statistiques/fic…). You can add this to our earlier apartheid statement: on top of all the rest, even when the old finally let go of their wealth, it stays within their own "camp". That's my personal situation, incidentally: I'm 42, my father is 71 and he is starting to look at ways to pass things on to me and my siblings, when our professional lives are already well settled, so it'll arrive when it changes things the least, which is pretty much the French system in a nutshell. Now, I get that there'd be some unfairness in going after them: they paid into the system their entire working lives, playing by the rules of a social contract that told them if they paid up they'd collect at the end. Changing the rules now means breaking that promise, which is admittedly unfair. But there's no magic wealth tree in any society: you can only take it where it is. That's the way most major societal transformations end up happening. They're often triggered by a catastrophic event (the so-called "four horsemen": mass-mobilisation war, revolution, state collapse, plague) BUT what really drives change is a transfer: wealth gets pried from the privileged class who've been sitting on it and handed to those who'll build what comes next. So, in theory and in an ideal world, you can do without the catastrophic event and directly proceed with the transfer... The fact that in France, and elsewhere in Europe, it's the youth protesting is probably no coincidence - even though they don't frame it as a generational fight. And even though, cruel irony, the left politicians many of them march behind promise to bring the retirement age back to 60 (lcp.fr/actualites/legislativ…), which would make the situation even worse. Let's say they understand intuitively that the system is stacked against them, even if they haven't yet figured out how. And politicians are obviously doing what politicians do, meaning pandering to the people who actually vote, while pointing the young towards easier - and politically convenient - scapegoats. To be clear I'm not saying it's the only problem in France, VERY far from it. I'm also not saying that all old people in France live a lavish lifestyle at the expense of younger generations: there are also plenty of very poor retirees who, if anything, would deserve more. What I am saying is that it's probably the biggest elephant in the room: everyone can see it, nobody dares mention it - no politician, from any side, wants to run on cutting grandma's pension - and it makes every other problem harder to fix.
905
2,000
400
11,254
1,531,174
Jason Potts retweeted
For months, everyone has been talking about Peter Thiel’s secretive Antichrist lectures in Nashville. @gb_rango attended all four off-the-record lectures, held inside the historic Grand Lodge of Tennessee Free and Accepted Masons. Now, with Thiel’s blessing: a comprehensive, firsthand reconstruction of his sprawling theory of the end times, from AI doomers and one-world government to the fate of America. piratewires.com/p/inside-pet…
35
91
35
902
146,488
Jason Potts retweeted
Don Lavoie is a name that should be more widely remembered among liberal political economists. His life sadly was cut short by cancer, yet his legacy lived on in his students as well as the record of his written work. Last night one of those former students of Don - Virgil Storr - delivered a brilliant talk on Markets as Emancipators. Don stressed this point in his teaching and in personal conversation. I discuss this in my The Struggle for a Better World as well. Virgil’s talk was perhaps the best example I have seen delivering the core Lavoie message about markets as liberators from oppression.
1
16
98
2,073
Jason Potts retweeted
Was about to write this but Ben beat me to it. Econ is unique among the sciences in that it is several pretty different fields living under one umbrella. Empirical econ is the biggest subfield and its closest to biology or chemistry: it’s about designing or—even better—finding a natural experiment, or documenting interesting and important patterns in data. Most of the arguments in that field are about methods, eg do you have identification. More and more are starting to study AI now but obviously this won’t be transformative AI because, well, there is no data on transformative AI. Then there are macro economists. They work with a set of pretty standard models and mainly expand them by slowly adding/subtracting different sectors or micro founding factors of production in different ways. Many of the arguments are on the parameter values that we should assume when simulating the economy. Early research on transformative AI started there—as demonstrated recently by Chad, Anton et al, the different levels of transformation are due to different assumptions on parameters rather than some new type of economics. The same model can predict basically no impact of AI vs huge transformation, it’s all about assumptions on parameters. Finally there is micro theory. This is where decision theory, game theory, mech design, org econ (sort of) live. This field works by setting out a set of assumptions and then *deriving* the expected results; alternatively one could start with a result and work backwards to derive the necessary and sufficient assumptions. There is a ton of potential here to do work on transformative AI: start with assumptions on how AI differs than human agents (eg relax basic assumptions on constraints, on scarcity, introduce completely different objective functions), then derive implications. But this is where there is the least amount of work, and it’s important for that to change (and I believe that it already is). I think we can make a ton of progress from these three subfields on better understanding the potential AGI and post AGI transformation. But there is another scenario, post strong ASI, where I don’t think economics has much to say about. Here I agree with @Jabaluck that the economy (if you can even call it that) and the agents in it will be so vastly different and beyond our imagination that I wouldn’t know where to start modeling it. Not to discourage others, but post singularity seems like pure epistemic uncertainty to me. A lot of the critiques I hear about AI and economics come from people who don’t quite get what economists do. They look around at different results and if they don’t like some of them, they say “oh economics isn’t “pilled” or something. But economists don’t debate results, they *derive* results from assumptions. Thats where the debate is. Saying “but you don’t understand a world with 15 billion AI agents”. What does that mean for the economy? What are those agents doing, who is buying what they are producing, what do property rights look like? Depending on those assumptions you’ll get vastly different economic scenarios, from 2% growth and high human labor share to completely alien centralized systems with no prices or markets.
This misdiagnoses things in a few different ways - let me try to unpack. (1) A lot of the 10x new economists of AI are empirical. Truly empirical econ is modest and backward-looking. (2) What you want is new theory - that's where big new approaches will live/come from. 1/
23
62
12
424
66,198
Take a look at this Thought Provoking piece on Socialism written by the CEA during Trump 1. Would AI have dared to write this? When I was the department chair at @usc_econ I sent this paper to all of our majors and a couple of students complained! trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov…
1
1
2
380
Returning to Jason's point, I view AI and economic science to be complements. This is the them I pursue in this paper; Will AI Improve Undergraduate Economics Education? drive.google.com/file/d/1EFo…
1
1
242
Jason Potts retweeted
It is hilarious that super intelligence costs the same as Netflix
139
410
57
7,536
153,320