Not sure what you're talking about. But I don't think I was implying what you think I was implying. I don't mean I want people talking about "crypto". I mean I want people talking about other topics. Anyways, welcome to my mute list.
Not quite. But it can feel like an echo chamber sometimes, if I'm being quite honest. Political views here are overwhelmingly libertarian and anarchist, and focused on bitcoin and Nostr. Which is fine. But I do like diversity.
Really enjoyed Bitcoin Miami this year. Met so many great people. Thanks for all the great conversations. Biggest takeaway: a LOT of people want me to resume tweeting again, in addition to being on Nostr. The thing is, it's not even a protest at this point. I just don't trust myself to not get sucked in to what I look back on as one of the most unproductive time sinks. Trying really hard to limit my time on social media. 🤷🏻♂️
I should tell you that I am by no means an AI expert. Although, I would probably be disinclined to believe that Google is engaged in such a conspiracy based on the testimony of a single person.
To double down on this: I would probably consider a lot of "skilled debaters", con artists and bullshit artists. People who can win debates through pure emotional appeal and fallacies that average people fall for. I wouldn't consider such a skilled debater to be having an open and honest debate. So this is really not my point.
I don't think being able to defend a belief has anything to do with being a skilled debater. Because the point is not about being able to win debates. It's about being able to defend your beliefs, by showing that they have consideration, and some rational foundation. It's not even about convincing people. It's about convincing yourself. But more importantly, being brave enough to consider you might be wrong.
A belief that can't be defended, seems like a pretty empty concept to me.
The thing is, it’s not even really about whether you can defend it to others. It’s whether you can defend it to yourself. That’s intellectual honesty. If all one does is listen to people they agree with, and read arguments that re-inforce their belief, and block out countervailing viewpoints, I think that’s tantamount to lying to one’s self.
Depends on how you define success. I've had plenty of what I consider productive debates, where I feel like I learned something and the other person learned something, but we didn't necessarily come to accord. So I don't mean "win", if that's what's meant by success.
If you can't defend an idea in an open and honest debate with someone, do you even really believe it?
Except, there's no credentials on chain.
Would you be equally anal to someone who was arguing that it is a conspiracy?
Because I see people saying things, as if they're true, that I believe are exceedingly unlikely to be true, so I said as much. Humility does not negate having opinions. I have sufficient humility that if someone proves the existence of a conspiracy, I will eagerly evaluate the evidence.
Well, for one, it's almost impossible to prove of a negative. But on the argument to the affirmative, outside of innuendo, I see no evidence that it is.
I can't possibly prove that there isn't a red teapot in orbit of Pluto, either. But I'd be happy pronouncing there isn't, in the absence of evidence that there is.
What is my unwarranted confident statement, exactly?
Bear in mind that I'm not an AnCap.
Suspicious coincidences and innuendo can be easily constructed for anyone, anything, and at any time. Which is why, generally speaking, these kind of appeals are considered fallacious reasoning in rational and scientific discourse. So I don't know what to tell you. But I guess I would tell you that you're insisting on using things as evidence that centuries worth of philosophy pretty much tells us we shouldn't use as evidence to inform options.
But reconciling all of this requires letting go of our impulse to interpret things through a functionalist lens. Which is hard to do, because our dumb brains *really* want to take that shortcut.