Ryan 🟠⚡️
5.6K posts
@LibertyBTC
₿itcoiner⚡️, Patriot, Data Engineer, Homesteader, Texan
Peak Apathy. My latest piece is out for @_checkonchain subscribers, and we have a special treat. Today I build ontop of a terrific work @SullyMichaelvan has done measuring Bitcoiner sentiment, and overlay where onchain data corroborates, or diverges. newsletter.checkonchain.com/p/peak-apathy
I think you're onto something with this work. Seriously. There's something here. The confluence with the on-chain work is undeniable. It reminds me of how the best works in Psychology integrate different approaches: behavioral, anatomical, pharmacological... if you can cross-confirm observations re: the same phenomena using multiple disciplines and approaches you can be confident you're approaching the "ground truth" of what's going on. You're bringing more lenses to bear on the same underlying thing. Lean in, man. You've found something @SullyMichaelvan
Buying $BTC doesn't just build the $ASST balance sheet. It raises the floor for everyone holding it. We are not $MSTR. We never were. Different investors. Different strategy. Same asset. Bigger game.
I am getting tired of reading 'experts' like LeCun repeatedly claiming that our AIs are nowhere near human-level intelligence. Let us look at the evidence. US universities rank students based on standardized tests like the SAT. Current AIs achieve near-perfect SAT scores. They also beat tests like the GRE. A few years ago, it was notable when early ChatGPT scored ~120 on an IQ test, a common measure of human intelligence. An IQ of 120 is well above average. Current AIs reportedly have IQ scores similar to those of leading scientists. It is not just in tests. I can ask an AI to produce a science paper that looks undistinguishable from what a PhD level student could do. I just have to give it the data. Better yet, from a prompt, agents can run the experiments and collect the data, and then write the papers. Those of us who try to get work done with AI know what is possible. You can't possibly just say 'this is nowhere near human-level intelligence'. In software, good AIs show a greater mastery of, say, C++, than your average software engineering professor. You could just build a formal test to prove it. The difficulty is that the professors would refuse to take your tests. At this point point, someone will object 'yeah, but your AI can't do this simple thing that we can all do'. Fine. These AIs do not have *human* intelligence. They are very much not human beings. They are something like alien intelligence. They can code straight in assembly language, but have trouble counting characters in words. But that's the result of trade-offs. A dog or a monkey can solve some problems faster than you can. But let us be fair. As a species, these AIs have definitively 'human-level intelligence'. You can't spend decades setting up cognitive tests for human beings, have these AIs beat us in these tests and then say 'well, that's not real intelligence'. Come on !
