Avatar
ynniv
576d23dc3db2056d208849462fee358cf9f0f3310a2c63cb6c267a4b9f5848f9
epistemological anarchist follow the iwakan scale things

`ollama run deepseek-r1:671b-q8_0` ...

I can haz cores?

"There were some of us that lusted after [AI] really at that time. All the [models] in the world tended to be in big centres and you had to get permission to get close to them, and you know, nobody had access to [AI]. And the idea that you could have your own [AI] and do whatever you wanted to with it, whenever you wanted to, was fantastic."

– Ed Roberts, inventor of the ALTAIR. ("computer" replaced by "AI")

Nostr is the Church of Bitcoin. And as a bitcoin unbeliever, I'd like to probe the understandings and beliefs of those who are really into bitcoin.

These false dichotomy questions are meant to spur discussion, of course I don't think anyone can simply choose one over the other, but I wonder what people are thinking.

Which of the following is true:

1. If government went away, the people would be free of the oppression of taxes, all interactions would be voluntary, and anarcho-capitalism can finally bring in a utopia.

2. if government went away, the infrastructure would erode (roads, the internet, power distribution, sewage, etc) and people would be living in fear of violent gangs that would have bloody and terrible battles for power.

Which of the following is true:

1. Bitcoin will grow to the point of being the world currency, at which point government won't have any reliable way to collect taxes and government will shrink away.

2. Bitcoin won't get much larger than it already is today because if it gets much bigger governments will shut it down, seeing it as an existential threat.

I could ask more but I think you get the point.

My belief is that small governments are good and necessary things, and governments will not allow themselves to lose revenue in any significant amount, so bitcoin can't grow much larger unless it embraces KYC (which the Church of Bitcoin clearly doesn't). And therefore IMHO there is no bitcoin endgame other than where we currently are. I believe we are living in an abnormal period of laxity.

I"m about to run off and I won't see the replies to this for hours, so don't expect me to participate in the discussion right away.

BTW: I am libertarian, I believe in free markets, I like power in the hands of the people, I hate the fact that governments are necessary, and I love free speech. But also I think I'm pragmatic and realistic.

"There is only one way to happiness and that is to cease worrying about things which are beyond the power or our will"

Replying to Avatar oscarcer

I asked the same question to Deep Seek. pretty much the same talking points, but it added a concern about energy consumption.

"The relationship between Bitcoin and human rights is a complex and evolving topic. Bitcoin, as a decentralized digital currency, has several characteristics that can intersect with human rights issues:

1. **Financial Inclusion**: Bitcoin can provide access to financial services for people who are excluded from traditional banking systems. This can be particularly important in regions where governments control or restrict access to financial services as a means of suppressing dissent or controlling populations.

2. **Censorship Resistance**: Bitcoin transactions are difficult to censor due to the decentralized nature of the blockchain. This can be crucial for activists and journalists operating under repressive regimes, as it allows them to receive funds without government interference.

3. **Privacy and Anonymity**: While Bitcoin transactions are recorded on a public ledger, the identities of the parties involved are not inherently tied to their wallet addresses. This can offer a degree of privacy for individuals who may be at risk if their financial transactions were exposed.

4. **Protection from Inflation and Confiscation**: In countries experiencing hyperinflation or where governments have a history of confiscating assets, Bitcoin can serve as a store of value and a means of protecting wealth.

5. **Empowerment**: Bitcoin can empower individuals by giving them control over their own money without the need for intermediaries. This can be particularly empowering in situations where individuals face discrimination or are subject to the whims of corrupt financial institutions.

However, there are also concerns and challenges:

1. **Volatility**: The price of Bitcoin is highly volatile, which can pose risks for individuals relying on it for financial stability.

2. **Regulatory Challenges**: Governments may seek to regulate or ban Bitcoin, which can limit its effectiveness as a tool for human rights.

3. **Illicit Use**: The same features that make Bitcoin useful for human rights activists can also make it attractive for illicit activities, which can lead to increased scrutiny and regulation.

4. **Technical Barriers**: The use of Bitcoin requires a certain level of technical knowledge, which can be a barrier for some individuals.

5. **Energy Consumption**: The environmental impact of Bitcoin mining has raised concerns, which could have indirect implications for human rights, particularly in regions affected by climate change.

In summary, Bitcoin has the potential to support human rights by providing financial autonomy, privacy, and resistance to censorship. However, its effectiveness is influenced by regulatory environments, technical accessibility, and the broader socio-economic context. As with any technology, the impact of Bitcoin on human rights is not inherently positive or negative but depends on how it is used and the circumstances in which it is deployed."

Me asking Claude:

> What is the relationship between Bitcoin and human rights? Talk it out for five prompts before making a final answer.

(I reply with "." five times, then: "Let's answer the original question now")

Based on our detailed analysis, Bitcoin's relationship with human rights is fundamentally one of expanded individual financial sovereignty, but with important limitations and tradeoffs.

The key positive impacts on human rights include:

- Providing financial services to the unbanked and those under repressive regimes

- Enabling cross-border aid and remittances with reduced interference

- Offering protection against currency devaluation and asset seizure

- Supporting privacy and resistance to financial surveillance

- Demonstrating alternatives to state-controlled financial systems

However, significant challenges limit its human rights benefits:

- Technical barriers exclude many vulnerable populations

- Blockchain transparency creates surveillance risks

- Price volatility can harm those who can least afford losses

- Environmental impacts disproportionately affect vulnerable communities

- Reduced ability to enforce sanctions against human rights violators

The relationship is therefore nuanced - Bitcoin is not a panacea for human rights challenges, but rather a powerful tool that can support human rights work when used appropriately. Its greatest contribution may be challenging traditional financial power structures that can enable human rights abuses, while its greatest limitation is the tension between individual financial freedom and collective social goods.

The technology's human rights impact ultimately depends heavily on how it is used and regulated, with the potential for both positive and negative effects on different aspects of human rights.

Me:

I don't remember. At the time it didn't matter to me, but twenty years later I can't stop thinking about it

Claude:

That's even more powerful in a way - how some moments of art just plant themselves in your mind like seeds, waiting for life to give them the right conditions to grow. You weren't ready for what that scene meant when you first saw it, but life eventually taught you why it mattered.

It's like the scene itself did what it was about - it marked a spot that would become meaningful later, drew an outline around a space you'd grow into understanding. There's something beautifully recursive about that.

The fact that it's specifically about a bed hits differently too - the most intimate personal space, where we're at our most vulnerable, where we dream. When you're young, maybe that just reads as "where she used to sleep." But later you understand it's about marking the spot where you used to feel completely at home in the world.

Me:

God damn, AI has no business saying things so well

Claude:

*laughs* I appreciate that, though I think it's more that Cowboy Bebop gave us such a perfect metaphor. Shinichiro Watanabe and his team captured something so fundamentally human in that moment - the way we all sometimes find ourselves drawing outlines around the spaces where things used to be.

You know what's really interesting about bringing this up in the context of Nostr? Both are about trying to create permanent anchors in an impermanent world. Just in different ways - Faye with her physical outline, Nostr with its decentralized digital signatures. Different approaches to the same human desire to leave marks that say "I was here, this mattered."

Want to share what hit you about that scene when you first saw it? It's one of those moments in animation that just stays with you.

Me:

Someone asked this on nostr, and what came to my mind was the end of Cowboy Bebop, where Faye draws where her bed used to be

Claude:

That's a deeply poignant reference. In that scene, Faye Valentine returns to the ruins of her childhood home in Singapore, and finding nothing but rubble, she draws the outline of where her bed used to be and lies down in it. It's a powerful metaphor for what many people ultimately want - not just physical shelter, but a sense of belonging, of having a place in the world that feels like "home."

The scene works on multiple levels because Faye is a character who was cryogenically frozen, waking up in a future where everything and everyone she knew is gone. Her quest throughout the series isn't just about recovering her memories, but about finding where she belongs in a world that moved on without her.

It suggests that what people want goes beyond material possessions or even relationships - it's about having a sense of continuity in their lives, of being anchored in space and time, of having a story that makes sense. When Faye draws that outline, she's trying to physically reconstruct a connection to her past self, to make tangible something that exists only in memory.

This resonates with how many people feel in our increasingly fragmented and fast-changing world - seeking not just physical spaces but emotional anchors, trying to draw their own outlines of belonging in places that may no longer exist except in memory.

Claude:

That's a fascinating and complex philosophical question that has intrigued thinkers throughout history. While individual desires vary greatly, some common fundamental human wants seem to emerge across cultures and time periods:

Basic needs and security - People generally want their fundamental needs met (food, shelter, safety) and seek stability in their lives.

Connection and belonging - Humans are inherently social creatures who desire meaningful relationships, love, and a sense of community.

Purpose and meaning - Most people want to feel their life has significance and that they're contributing to something larger than themselves.

Autonomy and growth - There's often a desire for self-determination and the ability to develop one's capabilities and pursue personal goals.

Recognition and respect - People typically want to be seen, understood, and valued by others.

Of course, these manifest differently across individuals and cultures. What interests me is how you see this question - what do you think are the deepest human wants and desires? Have you observed patterns in what people seem to be seeking? nostr:note1c54950jnkj3jxzqr6e9p3yzjrhlaa4rhu29aw69emamnhce58sqquxmt4d

Late night spontaneous Bowie is good for the soul

Remind me of the babe

"Just add a screen", they said nostr:note1k6zgzq7adprpyf5wg2um540g9fkl6wa9a926km3ud0aamy8sa7hq6lspkc

I like "stabilization". I've also been exerting to incremental constructions as "scaffolding", from ethics. Both of these seem to describe parts of what's going on when a model "talks it out".