Thank you for finding them for me!!
RE SNOWDEN: Oh ok I think I get how you were thinking about him. Here’s what I was thinking about him. Going way back, we should expect that once a certain x number of people “orbit” earth, and as launch rates increased and prices decrease access will be steadily less restricted, eventually someone will come back and say “they drugged me” or “i took my helmet off and suddenly without the helmet lens artifacts I could see that it was not a globe” or you know something like that.
That’s what I meant by comparing to Snowden.
And we don’t even need to wait for enough people to “orbit”. Plenty of scientists have access to the answers to these questions. And even more are running experiments where if taught physics is a lie, outcomes will be very strange. I do agree the truth must come out. I would just argue that it already has come out. I would argue that we shouldn’t be surprised if we see in perpetuity a smaller faction that doesn’t agree. Humans are so deterministic that we should expect 100% consensus on anything imo.
I guess the difficulty is knowing whether it’s a minority that will always exist forever at more or less stable population fraction levels because the minority is wrong and some people believe them anyway because the truth is difficult to get at and people’s truth seeking methods have a non-zero false conclusion rate OR whether it’s the other possibility, it is a minority now but they will be a majority someday because they are actually correct.
RE QUESTIONS:
Again, thank you for finding them. My apologies for my ineptitude. My view of those questions is that none are as useful for this question as they sound at first. All are explainable using traditionally accepted knowledge and abandoning that calls to mind the points above.
An interesting thread for our discussion might be: how much should the streamer’s beliefs about the status of those particular questions influence our conclusion. That thread could get really deep.
Finally, check this minute or so out for me. Im curious what you think about how she thinks about scientific truth claims.
0:52-1:23
I was also undecided until I watched him speak at Davos on Wednesday. Now he’s my hero.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfcd0gWNIog&pp=ygULZGF2b3MgbWlsZWk%3D
lol I know right. Feel similarly though still cautious
Good and bad as always. Better by far than most imo.
That wasn’t exactly what I was thinking, but yes that too!
100%
Never have so many humans escaped poverty, never has violence been so low, never has education been so available. We live in golden times. Oh and also never before have we had such good money :)
100%
And we’re at least a few years (lol) away from them managing their needs fully. Maybe as many as 500 years away.
lol. And it’s just as likely to tell you what you want to hear rather than the truth.
That’s part of why it’s a big problem if people don’t see everyone as valuable.
I would say those people are profoundly and tragically mistaken, and still individually valuable.
That’s part of the worldview where you endeavor to avoid harming anyone, helping everyone you can, but also defending yourself.
🫂🫂🫂
I’d just soften this. People are inherently valuable whether or not they are economically productive
We are the only reason the universe contains wonder and love 🫂🫂🫂
AI needs silicon, copper, cooling, housing, etc 🫂🫂🫂
I’m not sure if you’re thinking about needs at a subjective or an objective level… but I’m thinking objectively.
Let’s up the ante though to clarify.
You feel thirsty. That is to say your sensors are telling you you’re low on a resource that is important to your goal of staying alive. You consciously think “I need water”. You get water.
Similarly
AI responds to a prompt to check in on battery voltage. Sensors indicate low voltage. LLM reads this as a need for charging and schedules a task to move to the charger. AI charges its battery (and can negotiate the price to pay the charger if it’s a negotiable price)
It’s a different level of complexity but the same process works when AI mines copper.
I’m not saying that *all* AI agents will be really good at prices for things… the bad ones will run out of battery power and “die”.
They don’t actually have needs yes, but hang with me here on this: in the same sense we also don’t have needs. Whether you think that makes sense or not, both us and machines can behave with the idea that we do have needs, and both can come up with that we are willing and able to pay to achieve those needs.
Or am I misunderstanding what you said? 
Help me out with why you say “there is no economy without humans”. Maybe I’m missing something 🫂
Value for perceived value
Perceptions don’t correlate often to reality imo 🫂
I commit to sending 1k sats your way if you do 🫂
Yeah, I really hope you’re right. If that happens, humans will be free in a way we’ve never seen before. It’ll be amazing. Luxury automated superabundance.
Idk what percent confidence I’d assign that vs the other outcome, just know that extinction is >0% chance, and therefore, since quadrillions (to understate it) of lives are on the line, I think treading very carefully is super super important.