Lutheran pastor, music composer/producer, pour-over coffee nut, Irish flute and whistle player, Python programmer, Linux admin. Dad and Granddad.
Minnesota, USA
Joined February 2019
- Tweets594
- Following173
- Followers55
- Likes111
This is spot on. The major AI players are routing money through various organizations to push doom and gloom messages about AI on social media. They especially target scientists, and data scientists in particular.
The play is to manufacture public pressure on the government to regulate AI, and wall off open source and open models in the name of safety.
Always follow the money.
I warned you all about this.
They will be lying. The actual goal of the big AI providers will be to outlaw open-source and open-weight AI in order to create a regulatory moat around their business, and have some hope of earning out their astronomical capital expenditures.
The claims will be about safety and equity, the reality will be a money and power grab. Brace for the bullshit avalanche that's coming.
This is spot on. Follow this guy. His stories are great.
In Wisconsin, nobody ever tells a guest that it is time to go home.
Instead, they use an ancient military signal involving both kneecaps and a word that does not exist in any English dictionary.
Last Sunday night at my friend Dave's house, six of us were sitting on the living room sofa eating apple pie.
It was 8:45 p.m. Nobody had yawned. Nobody had looked at a clock.
Suddenly, Dave set his fork down, placed both palms high in the air, and slapped his own thighs with a sharp crack that echoed off the drywall.
Then he inhaled through his nose and spoke the word.
"Welp."
He followed it with a sentence that broke my understanding of the English language:
"Suppose I shouldn't keep you folks."
Keep us. We were sitting in his house, eating his pie, drinking his coffee, and he apologized for holding us hostage.
Before the syllable finished echoing, all five American guests rose to their feet in unison like cavalry hearing the bugle at dawn.
Plates were stacked in four seconds. Coats materialized from closets. Boots were laced at combat speed.
I stood up in a panic, assuming the house was on fire.
Then the strangest thing of all happened.
The retreat stopped entirely at the front rug.
We walked twelve feet from the sofa to the front door, and then stood in the entryway with our coats fully zipped, holding Tupperware, and talked for forty-two additional minutes about snow tires.
Dave had his hand on the brass doorknob for half an hour and did not turn it once.
I have learned that in the Midwest, a departure is divided into three mandatory campaigns:
The Couch Goodbye, which means put your boots on.
The Hallway Goodbye, where the actual conversation of the evening begins while everyone sweats inside winter parkas.
And the Driveway Goodbye, conducted through a half-rolled-down car window in twenty-degree wind.
It was 9:40 p.m. when I finally backed my car down Dave's icy driveway.
I looked into my rearview mirror.
Dave was still standing on his wooden front porch in his wool socks, arms crossed against the freezing snow, watching my car.
He did not go back inside. He did not turn off the yellow porch light.
He stood there in the cold until my tires safely reached the plowed county highway and I flashed my hazards twice.
Only then did the porch light go dark.
I understand now why it takes them forty-five minutes to let you out the door.
In a winter that cold, nobody wants to be the first one to let go of a friend.
14
teilo retweeted
Working at Oculus would have been an utter waste of my time except for one thing.
While I was there, I realized what's wrong with leftists.
Not that they have been programmed, that's obvious. Not why they have been programmed. For power, that's obvious, too.
But how they have been programmed.
The exact method that their moral compass has been destroyed works like this:
Target a bunch of people with very few deeds and accomplishments, such as young people or incompetent people, or incompetent young people.
Create for them an environment where they are rewarded with moral approval, not for what they do, but for believing certain ideas.
The ideas don't have to be outrageous, or absurd, or have anything to do with what you actually need them to believe. In fact, it's better to start with something innocuous.
Why? Because the goal isn't to install those beliefs at all. The goal is to repeat this process until you create a person who measures his moral worth by what he believes, not what he does.
Keep at this until you have created a mass of people who not only reward themselves with a feeling of moral superiority for believing the right things, but who will reward each other for believing orthodox things, and who will compete with each other, not to do the most good, but to have the most orthodox beliefs.
Now, change one of the propositions you have programmed them with to a slightly more radical version of itself, and hold this up as a more correct version of the old belief, which has been newly discovered by scholarly investigations into culture and moral philosophy.
Sit back, watch, and give them a few weeks to compete with each other to adopt the new belief, and to condemn the "evil" of anyone who believes the old belief, the very thing they believed last month.
Repeat this process until they are used to rapidly changing their entire belief system in response to an external cue.
Congratulations, you have a population of entirely programmable people whose moral compass is not just broken, but entirely non-existent.
They don't care what any person in front of them actually does. Only that he believe the orthodox thing, which they just learned about in last week's memo.
They are willing to do anything, so long as it is done in support of their current belief system, which can be replaced whenever it's convenient to do so.
They are willing to burn down an entire city with no qualms whatsoever if they are doing it in support of the idea that black lives matter.
They are willing to murder a man in front of his children, and it doesn't matter if his actions were entirely peaceful and good, because all that matters to them is whether he believes the correct things or not.
And a man who builds cheap spaceflight for the human race, develops viable electric cars to save the environment, restores voices to the voiceless, and plans, for his next trick, to heal the blind... well, all those are deeds, so none of them matter. The only thing that matters is that he told people to vote republican once, which is wrongthink.
So what you have a horde of communist zombies, who can be steered to shuffle in any direction and attack the living, eat their brains, and turn them into more zombies.
Once someone becomes one of the zombies, you can't cure him, because a moral compass can only be repaired by understanding the consequences of actions in a new way... and they don't care about actions or consequences. They only care about beliefs, and not about consequences at all.
Their moral compasses aren't just broken. They are absent. There's nothing to repair.
You have to understand that the zombies are zombies now.
My oh my, hear them scream.
A new organization has formed, "The Association for Human Mathematics" (AHM). They have released a statement asking for a ban on all AI mathematical proofs. It is a self-aggrandizing pile of BS. Read it here. It is short:
ahmath.org/statements
"Mathematicians did not ask for this work to be done." So… mathematicians own math itself? Who in hades do you people think you are?
You are angry because an LLM is not "trustworthy"? If an AI system proves a tough theorem does it then become trustworthy? What is your metric for "trustworthy"? If, as has often happened, an outsider self-publishes a serious proof and is ignored as "untrustworthy" but later hailed as a genius, is that enough for him to be trusted enough for future proofs? You know, if he proved, say, Naiver-Stokes?
What the hell does "ethically researched" math even mean?
But the kicker is: "in the public interest." I see what you did there, AHM. And I am calling you out on your BS.
Here are things you surely believe:
"A proof is true, or it is not true." — This is trivially self-evident.
"Proofs advance human knowledge." — Also trivially self-evident. It doesn't matter where the proof comes from. Once you know about it, human knowledge is advanced.
"Mathematical advances benefit the public." — This is not self-evident, but often assumed. It may or may not be true in any given case. Yet this is what the field tells itself, and what they expect the public to believe. It is what allows them to continue to receive public funding.
Show me anyone in the field who decided not to publish a proof because it was not "in the public interest." Not that it was bad for the public, but merely that it was not in the public's interest. It was a null result, or it was not provably in the public interest, just like all these LLM proofs. Did that one stop a mathematician from publishing? No.
Further: Show me a single example of a mathematical proof that, in itself, regardless of how it was proved, negatively impacted the public. This is a boogie-man in the closet. I don't believe you. Further, you don't care one whit about this, and I can prove it:
The field suspects that a proof of the Riemann Zeta hypothesis would lead to a breakthrough that would crack all symmetric key encryption based on prime number factoring. This would shake the economy and reveal massive amounts of private information. Do you honestly expect me to believe that mathematicians would hide such a proof? Not publish it because it was not "in the public interest"? Don't make me laugh. They are all salivating at being the first to prove Riemann Zeta.
The uncomfortable thing most mathematicians must deal with is that the vast majority of even their landmark proofs do NOT benefit the public. They are good for nothing but the ego of the prover and of mathematicians in general. What major tangible benefit in technology, engineering, or the understanding of the universe and the nature of reality has the proving of Fermat's Last Theorem enabled? What do advances in number theory reap for the world?
I will grant you that this or that proof may well be of use in the future, even if we can see no use for it in the present. I believe that because such mathematical advances increase human knowledge, and thus are valuable in themselves, even if that value may never be tangibly realized for the foreseeable future.
But is that what drives mathematicians? Does even the satisfaction of finally knowing something drive them? No. What drives them is pride of place. What drives them is justifying their research under the "in the public interest" clause, so that they continue to receive public funding.
This is the dirty little secret of higher math. And this secret has now been exposed to the entire world. This is why they are angry.
#AHM #AssociationForHumanMathematics #AIMATH
2
180
Part 13 of Pieper's "C. F. W. Walther as Theologian" is up.
lutherantheology.com/theolog…
#cfwwalther
2
46
Hear me out. What we think of as position in space, and the delta of the same (motion and acceleration), and even what we perceive as space itself are emergent properties of the fundamental properties of particles interacting with one another. Position itself is only meaningful when considered as the interaction of particle systems (including human beings) within that system. We participate in that emergent phenomena, and thus we perceive distance, speed and time. But underneath it all are hidden properties of individual quantum particles which we are incapable of perceiving directly, but can measure their effects, just as surely as we can use a measuring tape or a clock.
But this is not a new-age free-for-all. The physical laws, including relativity and quantum mechanics, are constrained by a higher-dimensional non-euclidean geometry.This is an actual unbreakable and inescapable reality. It is not some Platonic realm, because it directly determines and limits the properties of every particle in the universe and how they can change and interact with one another. This geometric constraint not only determines the underlying properties that, in concert, we perceive as distance, mass, extent in space, and the flow of time, but also determines all physical laws as we know and experience them, including such things as general relativity, and quantum chromodynamics.
What this means is that we actually can abandon locality, which in any case has been thoroughly disproven in a 3D space-time context by Bell's Inequality theorem, without also abandoning ontic realism, and reality itself as we experience it.
In this framework, the Schrödinger wave equation (ψ), with it's spooky action at a distance and dice playing, no longer violates general and special relativity. Nor does it deny that ψ itself is indeed an epistemic description which accurately models an underlying reality beyond ψ. ψ remains an epistemic description of an ontic reality, although one that might well have driven Pythagoras insane had he tried to comprehend it.
In other words, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were correct. Quantum physics is incomplete. Yet they are also wrong. Reality is indeed non-local, and we can no longer invoke hidden variables constrained by our 3D space-time to explain it.
As for what this constraining non-Euclidean geometry is? Any answer anyone gives you now is wrong. However, I think Roger Penrose really is on to something with his Twistor Space theory.
And to be clear: This geometry, whatever it is, is not itself God, but one of His glorious and nearly incomprehensible creations which we will likely not be able to fully grasp until the eschaton.
#twistor #quantummechanics #physics #philosphy #rogerpenrose
61
A blessed Quasi Modo Geniti to all my fellow hunchbacks. May the absolution of the ministry which Jesus instituted on this day comfort you as you bear the infirmities of your flesh, and give you new strength to bear your cross after Him.
24
Now that Trump has fired Noem as Secretary of HS, Bondi needs to be next.
We can’t afford these girl bosses running defense or law enforcement.
2
39
If you accept the definitions of the enemy, then you must also now admit that every faithful Christian is a fascist.
2
59
Do not let not the enemies of Christ define for you which speech is political and which religious. Those who slay the righteous, or delight in their deaths, do not get to decide who is and who is not persecuted for the sake of righteousness, nor who is and who is not a martyr. Neither do religious leaders who are too ashamed of the Gospel to recognize that condemning sin has political consequences, and that all moral speech is also political speech.
When a Christian stands in the public square, condemning sin, calling all people to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, their speech is no less religious speech when they, at the same time, use sound reason to convict the gainsayer.
1
56
No quarter. None. That's over and done. Your rhetoric is done. You have no more cards to play.
But please do go on talking so we know who to ostracize from civilized society.
You won't be cancelled. You will be ignored. You will be silenced not because you will no longer speak, but because no matter what you say, we will not hear you.
No more civil discourse. No more arguments. Your bleeding heart tears will fuel our resolve. Your bullets will fuel our zeal for truth and righteousness. And your arguments will. not. be. heard.
You have only one option left: Repent.
1
49