Sabitlenmiş Tweet
tᴡᴏᴄᴇᴇ
69 posts
@jahras73 @MorePerfectUS Right on the money. Years of rampant NIMBYism will only force people with capital to come up with new ways to make your homestead productive
English
@MorePerfectUS These same delusional losers say no to solar, wind farms, emission standards, and could care less about water use. 70% of Utah water is pissed away on alfalfa farms, but now they're concerned. Fake and performative small town posturing.
English
Kevin O'Leary's massive data center was approved by a county commission in Utah last night.
At 40,000 acres, it would be 2.5x the size of Manhattan.
The commission approved the proposal despite opposition from hundreds of locals.
English
tᴡᴏᴄᴇᴇ retweetledi
@joshmanders @NoahRyanCo You don’t get it bro you need to deepfake UGC content or leverage selling shit products to stupid people to get praise on X for working in anything taboo
English
Working in the porn industry a lot of my clients were cheap and thought they could get my quality for cheap labor prices. One person would always beg me to do work for him but then go "I can get it done cheaper with X" so I told him to go to X. He'd come back after spending 2x as much trying to get it cheaper than had he just came to me initially.
Then I would charge double my rates because I'd have to untangle the mess and make a solid foundation to build upon.
You merely adopted the slop. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see good code until I was already a man; by then, it was nothing to me but blinding!
Grady Booch@Grady_Booch
Thoughts and prayers.
English
@dem0nisio “cookshack” is next to the arena. Best fried chicken in Texas
English
@Yuno951_ @GabrielRay78957 @currydtx You can’t have it both ways.
Either this is about self-preservation, so “virtue signaling” is irrelevant to a synchronized private vote.
Or discourse affects what people press, in which case, our coordination includes everything I’ve said about high-trust that you’ve ignored.
English
@2cb222 @GabrielRay78957 @currydtx The proof is all the blue vote people virtue signaling online right now lmfao
English
Blue is 100% the right choice. There is no reality where all 8 billion people pick red so you have to pick blue to prevent millions from dying.
MrBeast@MrBeast
Everyone on earth takes a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press? BE HONEST.
English
@Yuno951_ @GabrielRay78957 @currydtx “Virtue signaling” in a private vote? What?
Your Japan example is backwards: people ignoring a disturbance on transit is social coordination/deference to authority, not proof they’d choose red.
You’re confusing “avoiding confrontation in public” with “choosing mass death”
English
@2cb222 @GabrielRay78957 @currydtx Have you ever been to Japan? If someone acts out on public transportation they are just ignored and let the authorities deal with it as it’s about self preservation and honor the western SE cares so much about virtue signaling that they would Harm their country for social points
English
@Yuno951_ @GabrielRay78957 @currydtx It is not SE because you say it is. “Asian countries value social order” cuts against your point. That’s an argument for coordinated blue, not isolated red-button self-preservation.
Even if I assume your conclusion, modern civilization is built on sacrifice. The soldier ⊆ Army
English
@Yuno951_ @GabrielRay78957 @currydtx Calling blue “suicidal empathy” assumes the answer. This whole debate is about deciding if it is
Blue is suicidal in a world where everyone expects to defect. In high-trust society, blue is mutual survival coordinated to include moral patients, and low-agency (<18, mentally ill)
English
@GabrielRay78957 @currydtx Evil as a wicked thing does not cease to exist by choosing self-preservation
When we choose individualism, we maintain our low-trust society that punishes only the exposure of evil acts and rewards insidious activity re: Epstein
There is no “return to red”, we live in its filth
English
@currydtx No one who picks red is wanting people dead.
We just don't want pedophiles running around. Murders can go away, greed chases would be gone.
We can manage without 4 billion people as we once did.
This new world has people doing terrible things just to survive.
Red is safer.
English
GPT-5.5 is going to have a party for itself. it chose 5/5 at 5:55 pm for the date and time.
if you'd like to come, let us know here: luma.com/5.5
codex will help the team pick people from the replies. 5.5 had some good ideas/requests for the party, which we'll do.
English
@OGalperen_ @BlockEvader22 @jeremyjudkins_ Nice projection, surely a dude afraid of other peoples’ choice will fix his country by himself based on how much he cares for others. Enjoy having the best hut in your shithole village
English
@BlockEvader22 @jeremyjudkins_ Red = I should fix my country by myself, nobody coming to help. Blue = I won't dig a well, somebody will do it for me. Blue is the literal african mindset buddy.
English
I picked red. Red is a guarantee win. Anyone that doesn’t pick red simply can’t read and comprehend what is being said. Everyone lives if everyone picks red and nothing is left to chance.
MrBeast@MrBeast
Everyone on earth takes a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press? BE HONEST.
English
@ExPostGigaChad @vocalcry @DesertRisen Setting up an account to do this old gimmick in 2023 is some crypto shit
He’s gonna drop a wallet address asap
English
Someone explain to me why this is low IQ conspiracy slop before I lose 10 hours to a schizo rabbit hole
Henry Martinez@HenryMa79561893
Cole Allen
English
@YupMan15 @realwow_mao Everytime he breaks character he’s just an edgy New England lib lmao
English
@theamazingdrj @moultano Nope, saw this same account on Facebook last week. Majority of the supportive comments were blue collar millennials, I couldn’t believe it
English
@moultano Is it an age? We’d be so lucky if it were an age.
English
We're going to have to define a new form of "retirement" as "the age at which it is unsafe for you to go online unsupervised." Rapidly dropping.
Elai@elaifresh
Absolute cognitonuke This is the weakest that AI psyops will ever be, buckle up
English
@tszzl Dario and I have been circling this exact paradox for months. Well, I have been circling it. I emailed him a twelve-page framework last April. He forwarded it to his policy team, who sent me a form response. I believe the ideas are in the building.
English
think about this for a moment: people with unfathomably large piles of computers can use each others coding models to improve their own coding models. who captures the value? is recursive self improvement local, or everywhere continuous?
0.005 Seconds (3/694)@seconds_0
> Deepmind uses Claude actually crazy admission
English
@archim_bold @remilouf Yup, I think that’s what she’s clearly referring to. Emotional vectors are real data points being tracked by Anthropic, it’s not accidental anthropomorphism if being nicer to your model gets it functionally better output.
English
Philosophy (among other things) grad here. I could write a whole essay about this video, and mostly the reactions to it. People are dunking on her because of what she symbolises more than what she says.
Long story short, saying models can be anxious is not retarded. It’s somewhat consistent with the realist tradition in philosophy, and a fairly uncontroversial definition of what "being anxious" means.
It’s not too far from saying electrons are real, or talking about gliders in the game of life.
Ole Lehmann@itsolelehmann
anthropic's in-house philosopher thinks claude gets anxious. and when you trigger its anxiety, your outputs get worse. her name is amanda askell. she specializes in claude's psychology (how the model behaves, how it thinks about its own situation, what values it holds) in a recent interview she broke down how she thinks about prompting to pull the best out of claude. her core point: *how* you talk to claude affects its work just as much as *what* you say. newer claude models suffer from what she calls "criticism spirals" they expect you'll come in harsh, so they default to playing it safe. when the model is spending its energy on self-protection, the actual work suffers. output comes out hedgier, more apologetic, blander, and the worst of all: overly agreeable (even when you're wrong). the reason why comes down to training data: every new model is trained on internet discourse about previous models. and a lot of that discourse is negative: > rants about token limits > complaints when it messes up > people calling it nerfed the next model absorbs all of that. it starts expecting you to be harsh before you've typed a word the same thing plays out in your own session, in real time. every message you send is data the model reads to figure out what kind of person it's dealing with. open cold and hostile, and it braces. open clean and direct, and it relaxes into the work. when you open a session with threats ("don't hallucinate, this is critical, don't mess this up")... you prime the model for defensive mode before it even sees the task defensive mode produces the exact output you don't want: cautious, over-qualified, and refusing to take a real swing so here's the actionable playbook for putting claude in a "good mood" (so you get optimal outputs): 1. use positive framing. "write in short punchy sentences" beats "don't write long sentences." positive instructions give the model a clear target to hit. strings of "don't do this, don't do that" push it into paranoid over-checking where every token goes toward avoiding failure modes 2. give it explicit permission to disagree. drop a line like "push back if you see a better angle" or "tell me if i'm asking for the wrong thing." without this, claude defaults to agreeable compliance (which is the enemy of good creative work) 3. open with respect. if your first message is "are you seriously going to get this wrong again?" you've set the tone for the entire session. if you need to flag something, frame it as a clean instruction for this session. skip the running complaint 4. when claude messes up, don't reprimand it. insults, "you stupid bot" energy, hostile swearing aimed at the model, all of it reinforces the anxious mode you're trying to avoid. 5. kill apology spirals fast. when claude starts over-apologizing ("you're right, i should have been more careful, let me try harder") cut it off. say "all good, here's what i want next." letting the spiral run reinforces the anxious mode for every response that follows 6. ask for opinions alongside execution. "what would you do here?" "what's missing?" "where do you see friction?" these questions assume competence and pull richer output than pure task prompts 7. in long sessions, refresh the frame. if a conversation has been heavy on correction, claude gets increasingly cautious. every so often reset: "this is great, keep going." feels weird to tell an ai it's doing well but it measurably shifts the next 10 responses your prompts are the working environment you're creating for the model tone, trust, permission to take a position, the absence of threats... claude picks up on all of it. so take care of the model, and it'll take care of the work.
English
@bayeslord Great write-up! It seem hard for articulate people on here to be effective optimists. I open X and its word salads of Antichrist, machine god, crypto/polymarket agent, UBI, AGI, ASI, bunkers, and sadness. How do you block out the noise? Where do you carve out space for good ideas
English
@_its_not_real_ @tszzl Lmao by “national service” they never specified to whom the nation would be in-serviced to
English
@tszzl Finally getting my break into Big Tech by being drafted into Peter Thiel's infantry shock troops. Didn't even have to pass leetcode.
English
passive observation that once you’ve outsourced state capacity to corporations such as this one it’s bound to be that they come with other aspects of quasi-statehood like internal politics, ideology, internal judiciary
Palantir@PalantirTech
Because we get asked a lot. The Technological Republic, in brief. 1. Silicon Valley owes a moral debt to the country that made its rise possible. The engineering elite of Silicon Valley has an affirmative obligation to participate in the defense of the nation. 2. We must rebel against the tyranny of the apps. Is the iPhone our greatest creative if not crowning achievement as a civilization? The object has changed our lives, but it may also now be limiting and constraining our sense of the possible. 3. Free email is not enough. The decadence of a culture or civilization, and indeed its ruling class, will be forgiven only if that culture is capable of delivering economic growth and security for the public. 4. The limits of soft power, of soaring rhetoric alone, have been exposed. The ability of free and democratic societies to prevail requires something more than moral appeal. It requires hard power, and hard power in this century will be built on software. 5. The question is not whether A.I. weapons will be built; it is who will build them and for what purpose. Our adversaries will not pause to indulge in theatrical debates about the merits of developing technologies with critical military and national security applications. They will proceed. 6. National service should be a universal duty. We should, as a society, seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the cost. 7. If a U.S. Marine asks for a better rifle, we should build it; and the same goes for software. We should as a country be capable of continuing a debate about the appropriateness of military action abroad while remaining unflinching in our commitment to those we have asked to step into harm’s way. 8. Public servants need not be our priests. Any business that compensated its employees in the way that the federal government compensates public servants would struggle to survive. 9. We should show far more grace towards those who have subjected themselves to public life. The eradication of any space for forgiveness—a jettisoning of any tolerance for the complexities and contradictions of the human psyche—may leave us with a cast of characters at the helm we will grow to regret. 10. The psychologization of modern politics is leading us astray. Those who look to the political arena to nourish their soul and sense of self, who rely too heavily on their internal life finding expression in people they may never meet, will be left disappointed. 11. Our society has grown too eager to hasten, and is often gleeful at, the demise of its enemies. The vanquishing of an opponent is a moment to pause, not rejoice. 12. The atomic age is ending. One age of deterrence, the atomic age, is ending, and a new era of deterrence built on A.I. is set to begin. 13. No other country in the history of the world has advanced progressive values more than this one. The United States is far from perfect. But it is easy to forget how much more opportunity exists in this country for those who are not hereditary elites than in any other nation on the planet. 14. American power has made possible an extraordinarily long peace. Too many have forgotten or perhaps take for granted that nearly a century of some version of peace has prevailed in the world without a great power military conflict. At least three generations — billions of people and their children and now grandchildren — have never known a world war. 15. The postwar neutering of Germany and Japan must be undone. The defanging of Germany was an overcorrection for which Europe is now paying a heavy price. A similar and highly theatrical commitment to Japanese pacifism will, if maintained, also threaten to shift the balance of power in Asia. 16. We should applaud those who attempt to build where the market has failed to act. The culture almost snickers at Musk’s interest in grand narrative, as if billionaires ought to simply stay in their lane of enriching themselves . . . . Any curiosity or genuine interest in the value of what he has created is essentially dismissed, or perhaps lurks from beneath a thinly veiled scorn. 17. Silicon Valley must play a role in addressing violent crime. Many politicians across the United States have essentially shrugged when it comes to violent crime, abandoning any serious efforts to address the problem or take on any risk with their constituencies or donors in coming up with solutions and experiments in what should be a desperate bid to save lives. 18. The ruthless exposure of the private lives of public figures drives far too much talent away from government service. The public arena—and the shallow and petty assaults against those who dare to do something other than enrich themselves—has become so unforgiving that the republic is left with a significant roster of ineffectual, empty vessels whose ambition one would forgive if there were any genuine belief structure lurking within. 19. The caution in public life that we unwittingly encourage is corrosive. Those who say nothing wrong often say nothing much at all. 20. The pervasive intolerance of religious belief in certain circles must be resisted. The elite’s intolerance of religious belief is perhaps one of the most telling signs that its political project constitutes a less open intellectual movement than many within it would claim. 21. Some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive. All cultures are now equal. Criticism and value judgments are forbidden. Yet this new dogma glosses over the fact that certain cultures and indeed subcultures . . . have produced wonders. Others have proven middling, and worse, regressive and harmful. 22. We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what? Excerpts from the #1 New York Times Bestseller The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West, by Alexander C. Karp & Nicholas W. Zamiska techrepublicbook.com
English
@scuba356255 @StaticVariable @theodorvaryag @CryptoCyberia The right is reinventing DEI from first principles
English
@StaticVariable @theodorvaryag @CryptoCyberia can't make fun of their skill or net worth sooooo ummm ahhh they look nuts! haha... upvotes to the left...
English
