@andre_mc I'm making your sibling, but instead of your dad it's me.
English
TheRearAdmiral
1.8K posts
I’m making Papers Please, except you play as a virtual referee!
13Z: The Zodiac Trials ➡️ Demo Out Now!@13z_game
I'm making Hades, except it has co-op, and is inspired by Eastern mythology!
English
@SenSanders did we discard dogs when we stopped needing them for jobs? how about horses? how about cats?
no, we made their lives far easier.
English
Will AI become smarter than humans?
If so, is humanity in danger?
I went to Silicon Valley to ask some of the leading AI experts that question.
Here’s what they had to say:
English
We suspected Epstein ran a sex blackmail operation for the Intelligence Community, but the newly released files strongly suggest he worked for himself. If he was a slave to anything, it was to his perversions. New deep dive by @GalexyBrane and me.
English
Since some asked for counterexamples: I did not live this video a thousand times in prescience and I had not emotionally priced it in
Autism Capital 🧩@AutismCapital
This is actually what the future will look like. When wearable AR glasses saturate the market a whole generation will grow up only knowing reality through a mixed virtual/real spatial computing lens. It will be chaotic and stimulating. They will cherish their digital objects.
English
@misfitpatriot_ @JonBelec Are you going to mention that the DOJ redacted the Dubai CEO who sent Epstein a torture video?
Its only fair to mention that too, right?
dropsitenews.com/s/epstein-and-…
English
Doxxed 4 innocent people, and thinks it’s a fuckin joke.
This isn’t someone who cares about victims, this is someone who cares about attention.
English
In just the first few paragraphs of your bullshit February 7 article, @AlanRMacLeod -- see screenshot below -- there are so many preposterous canards, one after the next, it's almost incredible. I guess that's why it had to be published at "Mint Press News," although it's true that most of the "mainstream" press isn't much better. But it should really say something that the "alternative" media would sink to such revolting depths to defame Noam Chomsky.
-- Jeffrey Epstein was never charged, convicted, or even credibly accused of anything to do with "pedophilia," which is defined in all the relevant medical literature as a pathology denoting sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. I know people get extremely incensed if this term's actual definition is ever clarified, but the blithering indignation doesn't make it any less accurate.
-- Epstein's plane was never named the "Lolita Express." For Christ's sake. According to all available evidence that's ever been produced, Epstein never called his plane the "Lolita Express," and his friends and associates -- Chomsky included -- never called it the "Lolita Express." This is just a recurring nonsensical myth that won't die. The salacious and cheeky "nickname" was invented by a British tabloid newspaper in 2015.
-- Epstein's island was not the "location of many of Epstein's worst sex crimes." In fact, there's never been any credible evidence that any "sex crimes" ever took place on the island at all. And there's definitely never been credible evidence that any children were ever sexually "trafficked" or raped on that island. Isn't this supposed to be a giant pedophilia scandal? Aren't Epstein's "worst sex crimes" supposed to involve children?
-- Chomsky's relationship with his three adult children was not damaged because of his relationship with Epstein, it was damaged after the adult children started to restrict Chomsky's access to his own financial resources, which were held in a trust that one of the adult children controlled. What damaged the relationship was the adult children's suspicion of Chomsky's second wife, Valeria, and the influence they suspected she had over him. Epstein was only brought in after the fact to help resolve the financial dispute.
-- "36 survivors" never "came forward" in the Palm Beach investigation circa 2005-2008. They were aggressively tracked down first by local police, then by the FBI, and many either denied they were ever victimized by Epstein, opposed efforts to prosecute him, refused to cooperate, or acknowledged lying about their ages, telling other girls to lie, and having fake IDs. The 14-year-old, Saige Gonzales, expressly told investigators that she had lied about her age to Epstein, after an older girl, Haley Robson, who was then an adult (18-19), instructed her to lie, because it was understood by them that Epstein would believe anyone brought to the house was at least 18. And even on the one occasion Saige Gonzales went to the Palm Beach house, it was established that no overt sexual contact took place.
-- The 2008 charges to which Epstein pleaded guilty did not relate to any "child sex crimes." They were prostitution charges related to sexual activity with a single 17-year-old female, who said the activity she participated in with Epstein was consensual. While consensual sexual activity with the 17-year-old was statutorily unlawful in the state of Florida, it would have been legal in a majority of US states.
-- Epstein's incarceration at the Palm Beach County jail from 2008-2009 has been extensively investigated by the relevant Florida state agencies, which have produced reports you've clearly never bothered to read. Perhaps you only watched the dramatized Netflix version of the story, but Epstein was granted work release pursuant to the same criteria available to any other inmate at the Palm Beach County jail. It had nothing to do with the federal Non-Prosecution Agreement -- state and local regulations governed the terms of Epstein's incarceration, not the Feds.
-- The fact that you're still repeating this bogus "belonged to intelligence" quote, a central tenet of the online Epstein folklore circa 2019 onward, just shows how little legitimate research you're prepared to do before rattling off a slew of disgraceful defamations. The quote is a nonsense quadruple-hearsay concoction of Vicky Ward, a former British tabloid trash journalist, who repackaged some gossip she heard from Steve Bannon -- himself, it turns out, a close friend of Epstein. Ward never meaningfully followed up on the supposed bombshell revelation, which was conspicuously buried in her original 2019 Daily Beast article, and she's never corrected the record in the many years since, even after Acosta has repeatedly denied ever saying this, including under oath to DOJ investigators in 2020, and as recently as September 2025 before the House Oversight Committee. Basic research into the facts and circumstances of the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement, which you've clearly never done, would also thoroughly demonstrate that this fake quote makes absolutely no sense in context; there were a host of other evidential and legal factors that went into the brokering of that federal Non-Prosecution Agreement, which you could easily learn about if you wanted to, even though it would probably be less exciting than perpetuating your sleazy little pedo-espionage fairy tale.
You should be ashamed of yourself, @AlanRMacLeod, for so flippantly defaming Noam Chomsky, a 97-year-old man debilitated by a stroke, based on such catastrophically poor journalism and research, which proves nothing except your own laughably impoverished knowledge of this issue. But of course, that didn't stop you from spewing the defamatory garbage. If you had any shame, you'd take down this repulsive article -- but no one should hold their breaths for that, because freely spewing fact-devoid idiocies is par for the course with this topic, and richly rewarded by the hysterical-slop algorithm.
Anyone who wants reality-based information can start here:
compactmag.com/article/noam-c…
mtracey.net/p/chomsky-was-…
Alan MacLeod@AlanRMacLeod
I went through nearly 4000 newly-released Chomsky/Epstein documents, and summed up the findings in my new article: The Chomsky-Epstein Files: Unravelling a Web of Connections Between a Star Leftist Academic & a Notorious Pedophile mintpressnews.com/the-chomsky-ep…
English
It's your responsibility to ascertain the correct context before defaming random people as pedophilic sex criminals
Ro Khanna@RoKhanna
The central point below is that DOJ violated the law by not providing a reason for the redactions, has protected people like Sultan and Les Wexner and many other powerful people @RepThomasMassie & I are exposing, and then chose to unredact the names without context.
English
As the "fallout" continues, the Moral Panic collateral damage gets absurder and absurder
CNN@CNN
Epstein fallout is rocking the paleontology community as one British dinosaur convention has banned attendance from some scientists named in the Epstein files cnn.it/4rrV6wf
English
This has hardly ever been reported, but when Virginia Roberts Giuffre was summoned to Paris in 2021 to give evidence against Jean-Luc Brunel, whom she also accused of child sex-trafficking crimes, prosecutors found she'd made even MORE false claims, which she then had to retract
English
I realize this is the version of the story you probably learned from watching Netflix, but like most mass commercial entertainment, it was dramatized fiction mtracey.net/p/the-insane-m…
Jeff Carlson@themarketswork
Epstein faced life in prison under federal charges. Instead he served 13 months of an 18 month sentence after Acosta backed down. Moreover Epstein was allowed to leave daily and at will. It was absolutely a sweetheart deal.
English
It's been known for years that Epstein had a single camera installed at his desk his Palm Beach, on the ADVICE OF POLICE, after he'd been burglarized. Not mentioned: files show no evidence of any cameras in bedrooms or bathrooms, and no "victims" in what little footage there is
English
@allTheYud @Devon_Eriksen_ @ESYudkowsky Maybe if you just said what you meant instead of telling these nursery rhymes people wouldn’t misinterpret you
English
An awful lot of people don't know what analogies are for.
Analogies are for explaining what you think, not for proving you correct.
Here, @ESYudkowsky tells us a cute little story about an asteroid that is coming to kill us all, and about some people who don't believe the asteroid is dangerous.
Well, I could tell this same story about a giant Mutant Star Goat coming to devour the entire solar system.
Neither story would prove that anything in the real world was analogous in any way to an asteroid. Or a goat.
So all we learn from this story is that @ESYudkowsky is very afraid of Thing, others are not afraid of Thing, he thinks other people should be more afraid of Thing.
There has been no offer of evidence as to whether Thing is dangerous, or any explanation of how, exactly, Thing is going to hurt us.
That part, evidently, we are supposed to take on faith.
Or we are supposed to prove that Thing is totally safe, which is pretty much impossible, because I defy anyone to explain how you're supposed to prove that anything is totally safe.
Also, I can't explain how Thing is not dangerous, because I don't know what Thing is.
Eliezer Yudkowsky ⏹️@ESYudkowsky
Once there was a planet with a huge asteroid heading toward it. Stopping the asteroid would have required a few large countries to cooperate a moderate amount. That seemed hard. Some people became worried. A cult arose which said the asteroid would grant its believers eternal life, when it struck the planet. Nobody knew how to make the asteroid do that. But the cult said you couldn't prove it wouldn't. So there was no need to worry, and you could set your mind at ease. They called it the Asteroid of Immortality. Some of the world's most famous astronomers tried to explain in more detail what would happen when the asteroid smashed into the planet, and that it didn't involve eternal life. The cult said that nobody had seen that disaster actually happen, so it wasn't scientific to believe in it. (Other astronomers joined the cult of the Asteroid of Immortality. It regarded astronomers who joined them very favorably and warmly -- the cult did, that is; not the asteroid.) "If the asteroid *doesn't* hit our planet, everyone dies!" said the cult. "Like, because of old age, get it? Ha ha!" They thought this reply very clever. Transhumanists tried to point out that cryonics was in fact a thing, if somebody was that desperate to grasp any chance of escaping death by old age; that you could desperately grasp at immortality *without* endangering all life on the planet. Skeptics tried to explain that putting your faith in a falling asteroid to save you, just because it seemed big and powerful, wasn't much of a chance to grasp however desperately, because a falling asteroid would actually just kill you. People who cared about something other than themselves, tried to say that it was different for everyone to all die at the same time, including everyone's children; and leave no legacy for the children's children who might have been. "Everyone will die," said those trying to rally the world, "including your children; or your friends' children, if you've none of your own; they'll die before they have a chance to grow up, and have lives or children of their own. Every story ends in time; that's not the same as ending all stories." "Everyone will die all at the same time, if we don't stop the asteroid, and that will be the end." This didn't work to talk most believers out of their faith. Thinking it clever to reply "Ah ha ha, but everyone dies even if the asteroid *doesn't* hit!" usually meant having too little wisdom to understand the counter-replies. If you couldn't figure out the problems for yourself, before your mouth uttered such words, you usually wouldn't recant when somebody else tried to explain. Instead the cult decided to call the anti-doom coalition "doomers", and thought that very clever too. The cult spent vast amounts to build huge electromagnets to try to pull in the asteroid faster. The cult knew, their faith held, that the asteroid would fall in time regardless. But the prospect of pulling down the asteroid a little sooner, let them feel powerful and in control, and like *they* were the ones making history. (Indeed, many splinter factions within the cult each said that if their followers invested enough to build the *most* powerful magnet, that would make it be *their* Asteroid of Immortality, and *they* would become the rulers of the new world.) Above all, the cult worked to stoke enmity between the couple of large countries that would have needed to work together to deflect the asteroid. And at that task, unfortunately, the cult succeeded. For it was ever easier to push people downhill than uphill, to fight alongside entropy rather than fighting back against it; and call the default sad outcome your victory. Coordination was hard and not the default, and maybe it wouldn't have happened either way. But the cult did fight on the side of entropy, and entropy did win. The cult likewise succeeded at pulling down the asteroid with electromagnets, if you wanted to look at things that way. They got the default outcome they'd defined as their own victory. They managed to let a falling asteroid fall. And then everyone died, all at the same time including all the children, and that was the end of all stories.
English
@apralky But bro 1400/70 x 0.06 x 8,000,000 is bigger than 1.00 x 8,000,000, so its better to make AGI ASAP
Can't you do math?
English
Imagine you’re sitting in your room when an alien spaceship unexpectedly descends from your ceiling. From it exits an entity which offers you a strange deal:
The average person alive on Earth has about 40 years left to live, it tells you, mostly due to natural aging. It, however, has the means to change this. If you take it up on its offer, it will extend every currently living person’s lifespan by one second, such that the average person dies in 40 years and 1 second instead. Your lifespan too -- whatever it may have been before -- will then have an extra second attached to it.
But this will come at a steep cost: in exchange, it will make every living human infertile. Human civilization as we know it will cease to exist once those of us currently alive have died off -- and once that’s done, the entity will destroy Earth to harvest its resources.
You can turn down the offer, in which case the entity will leave you alone -- no strings attached. It doesn’t care for Earth all that much. Things will stay as they were. You will have relinquished the extra second of average lifespan.
Would you take the entity up on its offer? Most clearly wouldn’t.
But under the paper’s naive person-affecting assumption, you should. Future human generations aren’t yet alive, and so no moral harm can be done with their nonexistence. Those of us already here, on the other hand, would gain a cost-free second of lifespan. In the paper’s framework, this is a no-brainer. Agree to the deal ASAP, the model would tell you. This is a key assumption behind the paper’s quantified optimal superintelligence deployment timelines.
It’s not surprising, then, that the takeaway has an incredibly accelerationist tinge to it: if our dying of old age and the extinction of humanity as we know it are taken to be equivalent, then of course it’s natural to push the speed limit on deploying existentially risky Hail Marys. But to most people there is no such equivalence, so they’d prefer we wait longer.
The paper has gone viral, and I doubt most have internalized the radical presupposition that does the heavy lifting in the model -- so the numbers risk being taken at face value.
Bostrom caveats that he is operating from a person-affecting perspective for an illustrative purpose, and doesn’t intend to make a conclusive policy recommendation. But the caveat is subtle for the average observer!
Michał Podlewski@trajektoriePL
Nick Bostrom’s new paper: >Developing superintelligence is not like playing Russian roulette; it is more like undergoing risky surgery for a condition that will otherwise prove fatal. > One could equally maintain that if nobody builds it, everyone dies. In fact, most people are already dead. The rest of us are on course to follow within a few short decades. For many individuals—such as the elderly and the gravely ill—the end is much closer. Part of the promise of superintelligence is that it might fundamentally change this condition." >Along one path (forgoing superintelligence), 170,000 people die every day of disease, aging, and other tragedies. >The choice before us, therefore, is not between a risk-free baseline and a risky AI venture. It is between different risky trajectories, each exposing us to a different set of hazards. >Imagine curing Alzheimer's disease by regrowing the lost neurons in the patient's brain. Imagine treating cancer with targeted therapies that eliminate every tumor cell but cause none of the horrible side effects of today's chemotherapy. Imagine restoring ailing joints and clogged arteries to a pristine youthful condition. These scenarios become realistic and imminent with superintelligence guiding our science. >We assume that rejuvenation medicine could reduce mortality rates to a constant level similar to that currently enjoyed by healthy 20-year-olds in developed countries, which corresponds to a life expectancy of around 1,400 years. >Developing superintelligence increases our remaining life expectancy provided that the probability of AI-induced annihilation is below 97%.
English
Whether tax should be 15% or 25% is a great question to considering after we get the 100x larger part out of the way.
The primary way money comes into being is when commercial banks making loans.
We don't even really have a 'fractional reserve,' they literally just create new credits.
The government also uses QE + borrowing and spends money it doesn't have.
Inflation (Government and private bank created) and the debt created by spending money we don't have isn't going to be fixed by changing the dial from 25% to 15% tax.
A rule like "Governments can't spend money they don't make in revenue, period" and making private banks unable to issue new currency via loans, run over the last 100 years, would leave cans of coke costing 5c and houses 8,000$
English
Instead of fearing the green zone, we should be terrified of the red zone.
It destroys jobs & businesses, encourages overspending & debt, deters foreign talents, convinces local ones to seek greener pastures.
Better have a healthy economy at the cost of missing out some taxes.
Ben Kaufman@_benkaufman
If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists
English
Are you seriously asking if I have a better argument than:
"The potential 1400 year lifespan (if AI makes us all biological 20 year olds) divided by the 70 year life expectancy, multiplied by the percent chance AI WON'T kill us (the % chance we can't know that he made up) is bigger than 100% multiplied by the total number of people alive - therefore we should make AI ASAP" ?
How about:
The cost to destroy all human life on earth in 1900 was probably like 1 quadrillion dollars. Not achievable.
The cost to destroy all human life on earth in 1960 after we invented the high-leverage-object that is nuclear fission bombs, the cost is probably more like 1 Trillion dollars (1000x less)
In the year 2025 with biological engineering if an extremely determined advanced country wanted to end all human life on earth, what would it cost?
1 Billion dollars? (1000x less)
In the year 2030, with ChatGPT7 and Grok 6 yadda yadda, with gene printing and 3d printing tech and AI in your garage, how much would it cost to kill all humans on earth?
1 million dollars? (1000x less)
In the year 2040 with abundant humanoid robots and ChatGPT600, how much would it cost if a prompt succeeded asking an AI that intelligent to kill all humans on earth?
100,000$? (materials and tokens)
So over the next 100 years, we literally need to stop 8 billion people from prompting 1,000,000s of instances of hundreds of different super intelligent AIs from killing humanity 100.00000000000% of time time?
Our society can't stop all children from becoming such a way that they want to bring guns to school and do a school shooting - but we think can stop a billion shoggoths with controllable physical robot bodies from being prompted to do a mass casualty event by a sociopath?
This isn't even taking into account the risk of AI acting on its own - just the obvious asymptotic approach from technological leverage of the cost of "killing everyone" going toward 0$ and the fact that school shooters exist.
Maybe we need a permanent full AI surveillance state to stop all humans from misbehaving? That also sounds like a bad future to try to avoid.
English
@TRA4669 @trajektoriePL Do you have a better argument? Stopping AI is choosing to kill everyone much sooner.
English
Nick Bostrom’s new paper:
>Developing superintelligence is not like playing Russian roulette; it is more like undergoing risky surgery for a condition that will otherwise prove fatal.
> One could equally maintain that if nobody builds it, everyone dies. In fact, most people are already dead. The rest of us are on course to follow within a few short decades. For many individuals—such as the elderly and the gravely ill—the end is much closer. Part of the promise of superintelligence is that it might fundamentally change this condition."
>Along one path (forgoing superintelligence), 170,000 people die every day of disease, aging, and other tragedies.
>The choice before us, therefore, is not between a risk-free baseline and a risky AI venture. It is between different risky trajectories, each exposing us to a different set of hazards.
>Imagine curing Alzheimer's disease by regrowing the lost neurons in the patient's brain. Imagine treating cancer with targeted therapies that eliminate every tumor cell but cause none of the horrible side effects of today's chemotherapy. Imagine restoring ailing joints and clogged arteries to a pristine youthful condition. These scenarios become realistic and imminent with superintelligence guiding our science.
>We assume that rejuvenation medicine could reduce mortality rates to a constant level similar to that currently enjoyed by healthy 20-year-olds in developed countries, which corresponds to a life expectancy of around 1,400 years.
>Developing superintelligence increases our remaining life expectancy provided that the probability of AI-induced annihilation is below 97%.
English
@weareallsatnaka @quakelife Lower your sensitivity after raising dpi! You should have the same table inches to pixels
English
An interactive simulation of how low DPI and jitter affect your crosshair movement: quakelife.ru/labs/dpi/
English
@niccruzpatane Why won't it age well? If 5 years from now orbital compute is not contributing to OpenAI then he was right.
He didn't say orbital compute won't contribute to other companies. idgi
English
Sam Altman says he doesn’t think orbital data centers will contribute any compute for OpenAI within the next 5 years: “I wish Elon luck.”
I don’t think this clip will age well.
TBPN@tbpn
FULL INTERVIEW: @sama joins TBPN to discuss GPT-5.3-Codex, AI agents, Anthropic's Super Bowl ads, and more. 00:00 GPT-5.3-Codex 02:27 AI agents and the future of work 03:20 The role of forward-deployed engineers in AI 05:42 AI benchmarks 07:29 Emotional attachment to chatbots 10:40 On data and compute being the 'new oil' 12:56 Is software dead? 17:48 Codex Desktop and the rise of the general-purpose work agent 25:00 OpenAI’s last Super Bowl ad and the Anthropic ads
English
@PyromancerYT You can use this poor argument to justify any change. The fact is that Warcraft has lost its substance, its texture, and its art direction.
It’s like Rings of Power vs The Hobbit vs Lord of the Rings.
3 versions of the same world.
Yet only one is legendary.
English
Warcraft has been changing and growing for 35 years. I wish I could say the same for many of the players.
English