invcit

Public Key

npub1pup29znerp5f73tx4dhuzq8z044y20e3rc5gm32cnn5d3ny6z4kqhuc23z

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsq7q4z3fu3s6ylg4n2km7pqr3866j98uc3u2ydc4vfe6xcejdp2mqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsnsef94

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1pup29znerp5f73tx4dhuzq8z044y20e3rc5gm32cnn5d3ny6z4kqhuc23z

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-08-05 11:54:18 CEST

- reply

Have they already used open weights models to evaluate their codebase/hardware?

2026-07-25 01:46:48 CEST

- reply

He writes: “Open weight models, on the other hand, allow a broad
community of researchers and developers to examine their behavior, identify vulnerabilities, develop safeguards, and improve them over time.”
This is true in the shortterm. In the longterm (or not so longterm), we are talking about evaluating systems that are vastly more intelligent than any human. Systems with deceptive capabilities, with acquired subgoals and preferences that are difficult to discern. At a certain point it will become impossible for the research community to accurately assess the risks of these models.

2026-07-24 23:44:46 CEST

- reply

Why does he believe that open weights strengthen safety?

2026-07-18 11:26:46 CEST

- reply

That was an interesting write-up. I think one of the reasons there is so little resistance to this in Europe is that in the south people tend to assume that the government will do such a poor job that they will easily find a way around the rules, while in north people tend to believe the government has their back. That is a broad generalization, of course.

2026-06-02 17:29:22 CEST

- reply

Cookies, anyone…?
https://blossom.primal.net/1e62d5866121a87e555ff7368200c5fdaf03f807ed362bfd39e2f74a5cc71b78.jpg

2026-04-16 20:40:32 CEST

- reply

He has an English BA degree. And he has taught high school. Yet, he presents himself as an expert in geopolitics and claims to be a professor. The guy is a fraud.

2026-04-16 15:28:57 CEST

- reply

He is cosplaying as a professor.

2026-03-27 13:23:11 CET

- reply

Are they going to keep proposing this until it passes?

2026-02-18 14:53:34 CET

- reply

Are you setting it up so that you have some agents write code and others critique it/look for bugs? Playing them against each other sort of like GANs…

2026-02-13 18:18:15 CET

Only consciousness has intrinsic value.

2026-02-13 12:59:51 CET

- reply

Value is determined when an asset is sold. At a price negotiated between buyer and seller. There is no such thing as unrealized profit or unrealized gain. How can you pass a law that is a logical contradiction? And can the public be expected to obey such laws?

2026-02-13 03:09:08 CET

- reply

Seriously? You expect me to show up at the local townhall to verify my age so that I can access certain websites. But nothing you have said is novel, it is already in practice. Alright.

2026-02-12 23:39:33 CET

- reply

Look, there is no way the government will be able to keep up with which websites or platforms are the most risky for minors. The curious ones will look for ways around the system and end up on those non-mainstream sites. The predators will look for ways around the system too. It is much better if the responsibility is taken by the parents. And I highly doubt the government would stop at only checking the age. There would soon be special licenses for special websites. Imagine the eightteen year olds lining up at the local townhall to apply for a license to watch porn. Or, less comically, unless you are vaccine verified you cannot access any websites except the government healthcare one. Enforced at the ISP level, for your own protection.

2026-02-12 15:58:15 CET

- reply

If there is a technical solution, I would be genuinely interested. Maybe something with zero knowledge proofs. But you would have to enforce it on every website and platform. It would have to be at the protocol level, rebuilding the whole internet around age verification. Which is just not going to happen.

2026-02-12 11:40:54 CET

- reply

Of course. The strange part was about not already recognizing the importance of privacy in tech. So what is your proposed solution?

2026-02-12 11:16:00 CET

- reply

What a strange comment.

2026-02-11 23:06:40 CET

- reply

Why are so many platforms doing this now? I just received a message from OpenAI that “we’ll begin using age prediction across our services to help provide safer, more age-appropriate experiences for teens.”

2026-02-05 11:00:53 CET

- reply

This is important. Unfortunately, homomorphic encryption is not going to be standard any time soon.

2026-02-02 16:02:46 CET

To understand how AI might play out in the future, it might be helpful to draw a parallel with chess. After Deep Blue beat Kasparov in 1997, for a while a human+computer team still could do better than the best computer programs alone. But eventually, whatever the human contributed in terms of intuition simply got in the way. Similarly, we are now in an era where a human+AI team does better than either the human or AI alone. This leads to increased productivity and new jobs created, which will only accelerate in the immediate future. But longterm, humans will just get in the way of accomplishing most tasks efficiently. This is when we will see most jobs replaced by AI. Humans will still be relevant. We still care about the games of Magnus Carlsen. But if aliens show up and challenge us to a game of chess, let’s be honest, we are sending Stockfish, not Magnus. In the same way, real power will be wielded by AI, including physical power in the form of robotics. This is the landscape in which the alignment problem has to be solved. In the immediate future, it might look like we have solved this problem, since the dominant combination will be that of AI steered by humans. It will probably play out within the dynamics of a free market, since that is the best way we know how to align the interests of many parties. That apparent solution would be deceptive, however, since eventually this intermediate stage will be superseded by the era or total AI dominance. Imagine a free market dominated by AI agents, the leverage of humanity exponentially decaying. The only realistic way to counteract this appears to be to dramatically increase human intelligence, through genetic engineering, or through merging with the machines.

2026-01-31 13:00:12 CET

- reply

“At launch, Blacksky Cash will only be available only to U.S. residents transacting in USD, and in English (Spanish to follow), to meet banking requirements.” Okay. And I guess the hope is that pending regulatory approval it will expand to become what bitcoin already is?

2026-01-30 12:45:38 CET

- reply

Somebody call Yudkowsky 😂

2026-01-22 00:07:44 CET

- reply

Asset value is undetermined until sold. “Unrealized gains” is a contradiction in terms.

2026-01-20 10:07:59 CET

- reply

Ironically, it is making this shift that will their power back to them. Self-custody of the mind.

2026-01-20 09:26:26 CET

- reply

This community knows very well the concept of exponential growth of technology. Bitcoin is the ultimate yardstick against which to measure it. Thinking in terms of fiat is like trying to do engineering without ever specifying which units you are working in.

2026-01-14 10:24:30 CET

As robotics becomes more integrated into the physical world, the conflicts between centralized and decentralized systems will become increasingly tangible. How long before we see the rise of decentralized armies?

2026-01-11 22:28:13 CET

- reply

FWIW I do suspect holography has something to do with the cosmological constant problem. I think one clue comes from an old paper by Cohen, Kaplan, Nelson (https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9803132). You might find it interesting. The idea is that effective field theory put in a box breaks down when you put in enough energy to form a black hole as large as the box. Which gives a link between the box size (IR scale) and the maximum, cutoff energy (UV scale). Apply this to the size of the universe and you get a connection to the cosmological constant…

2026-01-11 22:17:35 CET

- reply

Interesting, thanks

2026-01-11 21:34:51 CET

- reply

Exactly. No need for assumptions about dynamics or locality. It really makes it very sharp.

2026-01-11 21:31:48 CET

- reply

Susskind had some ideas for the holography of FRW. Strominger is usually the one associated with dS/CFT. But this kind of research is more of the form “What would holography for dS look like if it existed?” as opposed to for AdS (and variants thereof) where we have several precise examples, where the dual field theory is known.

2026-01-11 20:41:08 CET

- reply

It has to answer why the cosmological constant is so small, and why it is stable against quantum corrections. It should be able to work everything out for de Sitter before talking about FRW. But it is difficult to connect to ideas linking entanglement in a dual field theory to cosmology, since holography is much less developed for positive cosmological constant.

2026-01-11 10:28:32 CET

- reply

The Kochen-Specker theorem just might be even stranger…

2026-01-09 08:14:01 CET

- reply

No, the protocol needs to stand on its own merit. Bitcoin proves that you do not need to dox yourself to build the most trusted protocol in existence.

2025-12-25 01:28:46 CET

- reply

Stop cyberbullying the EU!

2025-12-22 11:03:17 CET

- reply

Why should I be more worried about algorithmic breakthroughs for quantum computers than for classical computers?

2025-12-18 13:47:30 CET

- reply

I found this essay about it superinteresting: https://disinfo.zone/loureiro_chaos.html

2025-12-17 12:01:39 CET

- reply

My understanding is that SHA-256 is weakened by quantum algorithms, but not to an extent that is significant in practice. The situation is not the same as for RSA. It is not automatic that if we build powerful quantum computers, bitcoin breaks. An algorithmic breakthrough is needed. Worth thinking about, but there is already a risk that people break cryptography with classical algorithms. Am I understanding this correctly?

2025-12-16 14:22:48 CET

- reply

I think a lot of people see it. But Europeans are more complacent, and more suspicious of any strong opinions or ideology. This probably goes back to the second world war and its aftermath. So we work out compromises, without principles, and then compromise the compromises. Rinse and repeat.

2025-12-16 13:06:52 CET

- reply

What are the strongest points of the prosecutors and why do they not hold water?

2025-12-15 16:58:56 CET

- reply

I can’t be the only one who finds it taxing to read AI generated articles. It is as though the soulless nature of the text requires me to put in part of my soul to extract its meaning.

2025-12-15 13:46:35 CET

- reply

In the latest All-in Podcast, Chamath was talking about how we must find a way to transact online that preserves privacy. Around the1:03 mark. The guy has direct access to Trump.

2025-12-14 12:57:51 CET

- reply

I went to the video after you said it was stuck at 295 and I was not counted. So YouTube is misrepresenting the number of views.

2025-12-13 16:03:21 CET

- reply

For me, living in France at the time, it was when Macron said he wanted to “emmerder” (roughly “piss off”) the unvaccinated by making life difficult for them. Then, a researcher in the same field as me explaining that we may have force the unvaccinated to get vaccinations. I believe the main reason things did not progress further into medical fascism is that the virus eventually mutated into milder variants.

2025-12-10 13:56:42 CET

- reply

I think you missed a large part of the generational divide by characterizing it as boomers and young people. As a Gen Xer, I could not identify with either group in your analysis. We are probably around the same age. Did we really ever believe in the establishment? After living through the aftermath of 9/11 and the forever wars. Is it really a shock to us that it appears to be coming apart? If there is any difference, it is more about how the generations reacted, whether through protests, quiet surrender, or defiant nihilism.

2025-12-10 12:55:08 CET

- reply

Let’s get on it!

2025-12-10 05:07:32 CET

- reply

What might those technological breakthroughs be?

2025-12-03 13:22:37 CET

- reply

Sounds like an extremely risk averse person, who does not understand the real risk.

2025-11-22 12:30:17 CET

I wonder if the EU countries that are still buying Russian gas are following proper KYC regulations.

2025-10-03 15:31:58 CEST

- reply

I am confused. Nick Szabo wrote: “The Core argument I've heard is that one can hide data in other ways that are not pruneable; OP_RETURN data is pruneable. This suggests that allowing more data on OP_RETURN conceivably may reduce legal risks.” But you say he said it is not possible to remove it from a full node. Could you please clarify?

2025-10-03 13:14:06 CEST

- reply

I like how their response to “ID cards were scrapped in 2010, in our view for good reason.” is to explain that it “is not a card”.

2025-09-30 14:08:59 CEST

- reply

A higher op_return is already allowed by the consensus rules. If you want to disallow it, it would require a hardfork. If you believe it is such an important issue, I think that is what you should advocate for, not just mitigating things at the policy level.

2025-09-29 20:50:53 CEST

- reply

Isn’t it already possible? Or are you claiming that raising the limit is a hardfork?

2025-08-26 15:09:21 CEST

- reply

Ficciones by Jorge Luis Borges,
Four Quartets by T. S. Eliot,
Mysticism for Beginners by Adam Zagajewski

2025-08-16 11:16:24 CEST

- reply

There is a 1996 artwork called LEGO Concentration Camp by Polish artist Zbigniew Libera.

2025-07-28 12:48:32 CEST

- reply

You are promoting cell death!

2025-06-26 11:17:26 CEST

- reply

I would turn around and say that those who come from such dysfunctional families are better equipped to notice the same patterns played out at a larger scale. At first, you may simply notice something feels off. Then later on, you are able to articulate why. This is not to be dismissed as just intellectualisation. Especially if it leads to meaningful actions.

2025-05-05 17:20:20 CEST

- reply

I think what I, and others, are having an issue with is the following.
In many worlds, the different branches come about, because after a measurement, the wavefunction is a superposition of different states, each with its own outcome of the measurement, and these states, for all practical purposes, do not talk to each other, because of decoherence. Prior to the measurement, all kinds of interference effects happened, but at that point the wavefunction did not separate into different branches, and there was no meaningful way to talk about different universes or worlds.
Now, for quantum computation, you rely on interference effects. You don't want them to be tiny. So it is precisely what prevents you from talking about separate branches of the wavefunction that is responsible for the speed-up that you want. This is why it seems to me that it is misleading to explain the speed-up of quantum algorithms in terms of parallelism. On the contrary, the speed-up comes from that the wavefunction cannot be separated into different branches.
You are not getting extra compute from different universes. You are getting it because the way the wavefunction evolves mixes everything together in an unseparable way, making use of the whole Hilbert space effectively, rather than dealing with the very specific case of different branches that have decohered. I don't think this is semantics. If you cannot even approximately identify different branches of the wavefunction, while the computation is running, how can you talk about different universes?
Another way to put this is to ask, how is it possible to get an exponential speed-up when comparing a quantum vs classical algorithm? Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what happens with Shor's algorithm. If all it came down to was parallelism, the speed-up would scale with the number of different branches of the wavefunction, would it not?

2025-05-05 14:00:56 CEST

- reply

But are they even approximately separate worlds for quantum computers? I thought that quantum algorithms leveraged the interference effects for the speed up relative to classical algorithms. So to make them work well, it would seem like you would want a situation where you are very far from anything that can be described as separate branches of a wavefunction. If it is just small interference effects on top of parallel, classical worlds, then the speed up will be tiny, no?

2025-05-04 23:14:58 CEST

- reply

“the only way we can "see into" these different universes is through interference effects where the outputs of all the computers interfere with each other” <— isn’t the extent to which the parallel worlds interfere with each other also the extent to they are not really parallel worlds?

2024-10-20 05:28:03 CEST

Western culture is open source. Adopt Enlightenment values, such as individual liberty, equality under law, and freedom of expression, and you are part of it. Other cultures are closed systems. KYC is based primarily on genetics and geography. If you do not fulfill the criteria, you are excluded from the same range of cultural expression granted to the in-group.

2024-09-15 13:05:32 CEST

- reply

It reminds me of an old talk by Bret Victor called Inventing on Principle: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PUv66718DII