Soyweiser

I think that is it tbh. There was no big centralized profit, so no need to hype it up.

Could also just be environment, pretty hard to stay on one site staunchly if half the people around you are then people your radically oppose.

Also wonder about the only game in town factor

Yeah but I was trying to combine complexity theory as a loose theory misused by tech people in relation to 'people who get fired'. (Not that I don't appreciate your post btw, I sadly have not seen any pro-AI people be real complexity theory cranks re the capabilities. I have seen an anti be a complexity theory crank, but that is only when I reread my own posts ;) ).

They now deleted their post and I assume a lot of others, but they also claim they have no time to really write and just wanted a collection of stories for their kid(s). Which doesnt make sense, creating 700 pages of kids stories is a lot of work, even if you let a bot improve the flow. Unless they just stole a book of children's stories from somewhere. (I know these books exist, as a child from one of my brothers tricked me into reading two stories from one).

Yeah, but we never got that massive hype cycle for 3d printers. Which in a way is a bit odd, as it could have happend. Nanomachine! Star trek replicators! (Getting a bit offtopic from Galloway being a cryptobro).

Iirc Galloway was a pro cryptocurrency guy. So this tracks

E: imagine if the 3d printer people had the hype machine behind them like this. 'China better watch out, soon all manufacturing of products will be done by people at home'. Meanwhile China: [Laughs in 大跃进].

Thats fair, if you want to be generous, if you are not going to be Id say there are still conceptually large differences between the quote and "shit happens". But yes, you are right. If only they had listened to Scott when he said "talk less like robots"

Recently, I've realized that there is a decent explanation for why so many people believe that - if we model them as operating under a strict zero-sum game model of the world… ‘everyone loses’ is basically an incoherent statement - as a best approximation it would either denote no change and therefore be morally neutral, or an equal outcome, and would therefore be preferable to some.

Yes, this is why people think that. This is a normal thought to think others have.

Somebody found a relevant reddit post:

Dr. Casey Fiesler ‪@cfiesler.bsky.social‬ (who has clippy earrings in a video!) writes: " This is fascinating: reddit link

Someone “worked on a book with ChatGPT” for weeks and then sought help on Reddit when they couldn’t download the file. Redditors helped them realized ChatGPT had just been roleplaying/lying and there was no file/book…"

Yeah but those resource-intensive problems can be fitted into specific classes of problems (P, NP, PSPACE etc), which is what I was talking about, so we are talking about the same thing.

So under my imagined theory you can classify people as 'can solve: [ P, NP, PSPACE, ... ]'. Wonder what they will do with the P class. (Wait, what did Yarvin want to do with them again?)

It has but we dont have to make it worse, we can create a small village that resists. Like the one small village in Gaul that resisted the Roman occupation.

Only way I can make the link between complexity theory and laying off people is thinking about putting people in 'can solve up to this level of problem' style complexity classes (which regulars here should realize gets iffy fast). So hope he explained it more than that.