...I think an "on the record" society makes more sense. People wear smart glasses, everything recorded, transcribed and fed into an LLM. People can have a mute button, but generally discouraged. Suitable in the age of prediction markets, high definition streaming and fast software development. Humans can be verified at the door.
May as well have some opt-in regarding the matter. In the process, news stories could become, well, automated... the interviews are done in the society. The hellish part would be a clanker coming up to you and asking a bunch of probing questions, that's why I think they should be banned. Then again, people could start talking in code words to confuse listeners.
I am somewhat disappointed in Sam Harris being on the list. I do not agree with him on every topic, but I did enjoy some of his views back when he was more about philosophy than politics.
I do find Ted Cruz being involved to be absolutely hilarious though.
Did you see much about how his name is tied to it? I wonder in which capacity he intended to be involved and why.
He has been associated with other things in the past, only to discover later that he was in a list of people who declined to participate or something.
I'm not sure I'd put it past him, regardless. I like some of his ideas quite a bit, but—in one of his favourite phrases—there's a lot of daylight between us on some topics. More and more over time, it seems. That's fine, overall I mostly respect his ideas.
I'd argue Sam Harris' content was mostly political masquerading as philosophy. Most of his criticisms were very concentrated toward one group, and due to that, he has put himself into a corner.
For example, when he's been asked about Israel being a 'promised land', as an atheist to agree with that and to overlook the atrocities it took/takes to achieve that, is pretty hypocritical.
I find it kind of funny that the last time a partial member list leaked (a few years ago) it was because they tried to invite Andrew Gelman and he mocked it on his blog: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/02/16/hey-i-got-...
I guess he didn't get invited again.
As a Jamaican, I'm just appreciating his comment re beef patties :).
https://archive.is/HVFPt
Source:
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:x2obbaxjktznf67mnhznpplp/po...
Some god-awful opsec in there. The list was literally indexed by Google.
cringe to be on that list
"off the record"
...I think an "on the record" society makes more sense. People wear smart glasses, everything recorded, transcribed and fed into an LLM. People can have a mute button, but generally discouraged. Suitable in the age of prediction markets, high definition streaming and fast software development. Humans can be verified at the door.
Sounds like Hell
Yep, but remember the news story "France moves to break encrypted messaging"..
someone proposed it'll end up all being fed into an LLM. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48079325
May as well have some opt-in regarding the matter. In the process, news stories could become, well, automated... the interviews are done in the society. The hellish part would be a clanker coming up to you and asking a bunch of probing questions, that's why I think they should be banned. Then again, people could start talking in code words to confuse listeners.
I am somewhat disappointed in Sam Harris being on the list. I do not agree with him on every topic, but I did enjoy some of his views back when he was more about philosophy than politics.
I do find Ted Cruz being involved to be absolutely hilarious though.
Did you see much about how his name is tied to it? I wonder in which capacity he intended to be involved and why.
He has been associated with other things in the past, only to discover later that he was in a list of people who declined to participate or something.
I'm not sure I'd put it past him, regardless. I like some of his ideas quite a bit, but—in one of his favourite phrases—there's a lot of daylight between us on some topics. More and more over time, it seems. That's fine, overall I mostly respect his ideas.
I'd argue Sam Harris' content was mostly political masquerading as philosophy. Most of his criticisms were very concentrated toward one group, and due to that, he has put himself into a corner.
For example, when he's been asked about Israel being a 'promised land', as an atheist to agree with that and to overlook the atrocities it took/takes to achieve that, is pretty hypocritical.
You might want to check the affiliations and funding/promotional channels of all the so-called intellectual dark web.