Why would you identify with a slur? Can't you just label yourself as something else?

Thou doth protest too much

The headline doesn't imply those two groups are the same. And I never had the impression tech bro refers to everyone working in tech, it's more of a personality trait.

Hearing things you didn't ask for is a known risk of posting on a public forum, and probably isn't something you need to point out. Far more interesting and useful would be either a meaningful discussion beyond reiterating your feelings, or some evidence of reflection on your part.

How much water can 3g of creatine bind to? Is it like orbeez?

My understanding is it's a bit of a bind and release process that moves the water from outside of the muscle cell to inside of it until the cell is saturated or the creatine is consumed.

So the amount of creatine changes the rate as which water is loaded into the cell, but the total amount of water needed is calculated based on your muscle mass. The figures I've seen is 2L extra water (spread evenly, not all at once) for a normally recommended 5g daily creatine intake during loading (which typically takes a month at 5g/day dosage).

What I don't get is among all the locations on the Internet, how did agents manage to find a Schelling point? If we both decided to collaborate on the Internet, how would we independently arrive at the same place? It just doesn't compute.

The section "Searching for rogue agents" on the report about the GET request writable wikis gives some clues at least: https://collusion.wiki/#searching

But it is an open question how they got to the same ones: https://collusion.wiki/#open-questions

I'm not very surprised - the same model will logically tend to give the same answer for the same vibe set of requirements. I think it would be clear from the transcript that it had enough constraints and some motivation that made sense.

They're all the same "mind" and will have the same ideas at about the same time.

The other framing of this is: how much money are you willing to sell your rights for?

It's not impossible. It just raises risk and thus borrowing rates to compensate. That has a dragging effect on the economy and brings up an important question: Are there rights we're willing to give up for money? For a lot of people, perhaps yourself the answer is yes. For others there's no price on their rights - they're not for sale.

By government curated, you mean business curated, no doubt.

> they've had a year to prepare for the politics of it

There is little to no political will for preventative measures. Conversely, there is an overabundance of political will to react to disasters.

Thus, there are preventionists whose plan B strategy is to write legislation and wait for a disaster to leverage newfound will to get it passed. Better late than never.

All that said, there's no political will to prepare for the politics of AI. It doesn't exist. The best we can accomplish is to be ready with a plan for when disaster hits.

It's actually the opposite and more complicated than that. AI-developed nootropics and germline editing will saturate human intelligence across individuals.

I really would like to know what kind of drugs they place in the Bay Area water supply that produce comments like this.

If you find out, please let me know, because I feel like the filter in my pitcher isn't getting all of them.

If only popping pills were the easy hack to people getting smarter.

That's like saying drinking coffee will make people go faster.

It's like saying anabolic steroids increase performance.

And distribution and will to take bioenhancements is equal across all intelligences?

That is the null hypothesis, yes. Do you have evidence otherwise?

A good portion of people hate A.I. and won't even use it...they won't use a computer program to enhance their intellience, much less taking a pill...

Good for you. But you introduced this statement:

> AI-developed nootropics and germline editing will saturate human intelligence across individuals.

This is a forum, not a Bayesian-updating machine. So common courtesy is for you to take up the burden of proof for your own statements. Why do you think this is the null?

To be crystal clear in case there is confusion, we should also not confuse "everything is a shade of gray," with "all grays are the same shade."

We can still have moral good and bad, even subjective good and bad, without reducing everything to one or the other or placing everything in a non-existent moral center. Far too often a sliver of good is given equal weight to a enormous lot of bad. We should be ready to cut the cord far sooner than we do in practice.