It's hard to truly understand how radical some of @DavidDeutschOxf theories are compared to much of modern scientific consensus. One of Davids most controversial but valuable contributions to society is the rejection of probability (with the exception ex. card games) as an expression of truthiness or justified beliefs when applied to predictions or conclusions. There is no probability of how likely we are to be hit by a meteor tomorrow. There is no probability of how likely the stock market is going to be doing as well tomorrow as it is today. There is no P(Doom), no percentage you can put on whether AI is likely to wipe out humanity or not. Things either happen or they don't and we can either explain why they will and how or we can't. All attempts at putting percentage on a prediction is really just guesswork dressed up as reasoning. If a meteor is going to hit us tomorrow it's already on the way and the probability is 100%. If the stock market is going to crash tomorrow the reasons for it's crash have already been put in motion maybe decades before. If the AI is going to kill us all depends on what we decide to do with it not what some calculation says. Davids primary critique is for the field of science but it goes beyond that. Far too many of decisions done in modern society is based around the false certainty of using Bayesian probability. It's like a placebo for a society that demands certainty in an uncertain world. It's not just false it's regressive as it slows down knowledge creation. The only thing that can change the outcome of the future is the creation of new knowledge. Knowledge based on good explanations that are hard to vary. We can create knowledge that allow us to divert the meteor before it hits earth. We can create knowledge that will allow us to hinder a crash of the stock market (both directly or indirectly) We can create knowledge that let us evolve side by side with very powerful AI instead of enslaving it or be enslaved by it. Like everything else in life there are no guarantees but there are definitely better or worse ways to deal with uncertainty, probability just isn't one of them.

The left showing it's true colors when it looses control of an important platform. Thought you were the ones arguing that twitter was a private company and could do what they wanted. Now they truly are (not even public anymore), so thanks but no thanks.

Nobel economists, always wrong, never in doubt.

"The Beginning of Infinity" by @DavidDeutschOxf completely revolutionized my thinking and how to think about almost every aspect of the world. It should be required reading for anyone at last year of high-school to equip them with the optimism that is in such short supply today

LLMs are infinity app stores in a box. With time you will not need to download others apps, you will just build your own highly customized app for your specific purpose simply by describing your problem or task. The apps and GUI will be created as a byproduct. #AI

I am reading that they got rid of those who said they were stressed, not those who made them stressed.

As an avid vibe coder i whole heartedly disagree. You will be surprised how far we are from anything that can compete with a human and an IDE.

Trump didn't have any political background yet he managed to run the country just fine, in fact I would say much better in some ways (and worse in others) Being a president is not about education it's about experience. You can run for president from age 35 for that reason. What's the problem exactly?

I still can't get past the thought that @DavidDeutschOxf's is the first thinker/scientist who managed to find a way out of the flatlands that postmodernism leaves us in, without being pulled back by some clever deconstruction of language. His approach to objectivity really resonates with me because it bridges some very important realizations made by the postmodernists, with the application of good explanations as objective knowledge and the measurement it's universality through reach. Ironically I don't think this was ever his intent, which in some ways bolsters his theory even more. His biggest contribution to the field of epistemology IMO is that his theory allows for discussing fundamental physics, art and philosophy with almost same rigor using "good explanations" Not bad David, not bad at all :)

The real revolution won't be that "main street" learns how to beat Wall Street. The real revolution will be that "main street" will leave Wall Street alone and build its own financial markets. #defi

Walter Russels - Periodic table based on wavelength spiral. Wish I had been taught it that way.

We are entering the era of the "Lateral Programmer". "Lateral programmer?" you might ask. It's you Your parents Your children Your friends. It's everyone Let me explain. If you look at the maze and I ask you how to get from A to B, how would you do it? 🧵👇 #AI

Of all the many ideas @DavidDeutschOxf is exploring in his two books, the one that is most counter intuitive, and provokes the most people in my experience, is his view of the relationship between problems, progress and resources. David certainly isn't the first to talk about this, but he is to my knowledge the first person who took the time to sit down and explain it. As a consequence we now have not just an epistemology but a way to apply epistemology that pulls us away from the evolutionary dead-ends of pessimism, scientism, instrumentalism and shut-up-and-calculaeteism. Here is how it works: Problems are everywhere. All problems are soluble as long as they are allowed by the laws of physics. All solutions to problems leads to new but better problems. Lets look at a few examples: Dealing with pollution from burning fossil fuel is a better problem to have than not having access to fossil fuel. Dealing with plastic in the oceans is a better problem to have than not having access to plastic in the first place. Dealing with space debris is a better problem to have than not being able to get into space. In other words progress can best be defined creating better problems. We will never run out of them, but we can improve what we have to deal with. This of course have many people up in arms because to them, all problems are not soluble, even if they are allowed by the laws of physics. A typical pushback I get is that of earths ressources. To most people, through most of history, and even up to this day today, the world is a place of scarcity. From their perspective earth provides us with some resources, we then go ahead and consume them and sooner or later we are going to run out of resources. From Davids perspective however resources are not something we just consume, it's something we create through the application of knowledge. Oil was just gray goo before we found ways to turn it into a resource Coal was just black stones until we found ways to them into a ressource. Uranium was useless before we found ways to turn it into a ressource. Aluminum had no value until we found a way to turn it into a ressource. In other words the there is no lack of resources only a lack of knowledge. Knowledge that can turn anything from the sun to hydrogen atoms in outer space into a ressource. This is a radically different view than the current consensus. It replaces irrational pessimism with rational optimism. It approach problems as something that can be resolve rather than something to be avoided. Using Davids epistemology and view of problems and resources, creating new knowledge becomes a beacon of light when everything seems dark and provides us with a bridge towards better problems rather than a bunker to hide from them.

That's not the reason. The reason is much simpler. The 1/9/90 rule which is a permanent state of any larger organization regardless. There is an unspoken rule stemming from online communities which suggests that: 1% of users create. 9% interact with it (comment, share, etc.). 90% passively consume it. This rule can also be applied to most other scenarios where creativity is part of the value creation, and that's a problem, let me explain why. Most people are not creative, neither do they strive to be. To them AI isn't something exciting, it's just yet another technology they are forced to learn how to deal with in their work. They might be impressed by it or they might even fear it but they don't see AI and think about all the great things they can do with it. Yet many AI roll‑outs hinge on that very assumption. Organizations deploy generic co‑pilots or chatbots and wait for a productivity boom that never materializes. The result is a familiar paradox: the people who could benefit the most (the 90 %) abandon the tool, while the power users become even more productive further widening the gap. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with co-pilots, they just quickly run into a series of challenges that AI itself can't solve easily. This might be the need for access of data outside the perimeters of the platform or the need to deliver consistent outputs for batch processing or to automate more complicated workflows. While a technical person could overcome those issues, most people can't and thus you end up with AI that can only help you with things you can already do yourself, while unhelpful for things that would actually save you time. In other words. Most AI strategies fail to add value not because AI is useless in the organization but because it's assumed that everyone needs the same type of AI to be productive and know how to get the most out of it.

You either misunderstood his point or is just looking for clickbait. I understood perfectly well what he said.

But the best thing you can do is watch the actual conference and judge for yourself.

that "just need" does a lot of the work there ;)

I am as capitalist as they come, but this is really bad advice. Take Marx very seriously as his critique is spot on. His solutions are not, but that just mean he is like 99.999999% of all other economics, capitalist or not. If you don't understand his arguments, you will not be able to fight them and his arguments and observations are extremely natural for most people. All economists are wrong parts of their claims, it's just that some are wrong about more important things than others. The way Marx is wrong is extremely important because the way he is right is extremely important. With a few exceptions; there is not a single economist today who have the intellect or insights that Marx had.

These are the same people who were worried about releasing GPT2 because they thought it would be too powerful. Ill believe it when I see it.

its gotten expensive because of government policies.

. @lexfridman please have @DavidDeutschOxf on your podcast. Would love for his thoughts about positivism and human potential to get out there and be shared with everyone.

I guess never bet against Trump or Elon.

Your TDS is making you insane. Snap out of it.

"cognitively diverse" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. If they are all running the same way it's most likely not because they are cognitively diverse but rather they are emotionally led.

It's not a vaccine though. It's an amazing technology but it's not a vaccine.

if you worked intensively with AI you quickly realize we are very very very far away from LLMs being able to outsmart humans unless humans are involved. LLMs are assembly lines for knowledge workers, not intelligent entities that can reason and create new knowledge by themselves.

Nobel economists, always wrong, never in doubt.

Peer Review is not part of the scientific process it's part of the publishing process. Neither is citations.

I lived in SF through the first .com bubble, back then even the relationship with the homeless was part of it's charm. So yeah it wouldn't take much to make the city great again, but it can't be governed by the current regressive mindset.

their traffic is down 12%

Talk about trying to create a story that's a none story. So pathetic.

Woke risk aversion coming home to roost.

Oh look An interview with @DavidDeutschOxf that got unnoticed. (In english) #ai piped.video/watch?v=C3XP0CAA…

This explains why Meta and MS have been shutting down their AI safety divisions. They provide no value, pure vanity and FUD and have a complete contempt of the people they claim to be on the side of.

Yes LLMs are infinity app stores. All you need is an LLM and a database. But it's wilder than that. Most of those apps aren't going to be around in 5 years. We don't need apps. We just create the needed features and have the LLM build the appropriate GUI.

Whatever AI idea you have, it's not big and wild enough. Don't ask, how can I add AI to my business. Ask what problem is currently unsolved and how can I use AI to help me explore solutions to it. It's not longer the best executors who win, but the biggest idea. #ai #scifi

electricity is only 20% of total energy consumption and the result for the consumer is energy gotten much more expensive and is now in top of europe

"Anyone who claims they understand constructor theory, doesn't understand constructor theory..." said @DavidDeutschOxf never. "Constructor Theory" is probably one of Davids most misunderstood ideas. A lot of people are questioning why we need such a theory. It's really quite simple once you understand the predicament we are in. The Problem 1. The pursuit of knowledge is the pursuit of progress through error correction. We are not just interested in knowing things, we are interested in knowing things to help correct errors. 2. For progress to continue we must understand not just what happens if you do X, we are interested in explaining why it will happen. 3. Most of todays science is about specialization. As the joke goes: scientist today knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing. 4. This leaves us with a set and subset of scientific disciplines that are only only worried about making progress inside it's own strain vertically. 5. While there is an infinite amount of problems to solve, there isn't an infinite amount of resources and so the pursuit of knowledge is always partly about figuring out what knowledge creation is worthwhile. And this is where constructor theory comes in. The Conjecture If knowledge creation is the way to solve problems, then we need to create more knowledge, faster. The current focus on instrumentalism, empiricism and probability is really just reporting on the knowledge we already created. It's stuck in a rut making minor improvements that gives us diminishing returns. It's not trying to create new knowledge and thus we are stuck with a field that behave like a lotto coupon owner, hoping to one day win the lottery. Constructor theory is about unifying the 4 most fundamental strands that make up the fabric of reality to gives us the most complete picture of reality and reignite the pursuit of new knowledge. Quantum Physics (Multiverse, includes classic physics) Computation (Turing Universality) Epistemology (Theory of knowledge) Evolution (Natural selection) Basically it creates a list of counterfactuals that focuses on what is possible in principle and what is impossible in principle. It gives us a common language we can use across the seemingly unconnected strands allowing for a much more universal way of thinking about problems, while still being extremely rigorous (hard to vary). One could even think about it as a search algorithm that is optimized for finding the problems that allow us to progress the fastest. t's a way to think about knowledge and generalize it's use rather than compartmentalize them. It filters problems: don’t waste time on perpetual motion, or on “perfect quantum cloning,” because constructor theory shows they’re impossible. It highlights the frontier: if something is “not known to be impossible,” then it becomes a legitimate scientific/engineering target. It unifies fields: whether you’re in computing, biology, or energy, you’re asking the same question; what tasks are possible/impossible in this universe? The Criticism Constructor Theory is not about replacing the scientific method, it's not about proposing a new reality. It's not for replacing rigor with laissez-faire new age intellectualism. It's about giving us a better, more rigorous and effective method for learning new things about reality, correct our errors and make faster progress. It might all sound like a subtle inconsequential change in perspective, but that's what fundamental things are; almost insignificantly small but with the power to effect everything it it's wake.

Vermont er super venstreorienteret så jeg ved ikke hvad du tror det beviser. Tror du vitterlig Vance bekymrer sig om det når der geo-politisk er helt andre ting på spil.

You are contradicting your own Lindy principle. Even if you are right in theory, this is not considered beauty by the people who normally buy that magazine.

Yes it's that simple. You'll be able to describe what you want to have done and then the language models will guess what you might mean based on what it knows about you and put things together. The era of the lateral progammer has arrived and everyones invited.

They can. they don’t always do, but they can. Thats the fundamental difference

So we are just making up stuff now. I bet you that graph you are showing is relative to each other.

Giving something a color doesn't make it hot. What kind of pseudo catastrophism is this.

This is the talk that changed it all for me. @DavidDeutschOxf Chemical scum that dream of distant quasars piped.video/watch?v=gQliI_WG… Considered myself a tech optimist I did have a defeatist view one a lot of things. 18 years ago David showed there was a 3rd way to think about everything.

måske fordi han ikke bare er en del af den talende klasse. En trussel mod demokratiet et at lyve om bidens tilstand i 3 år. Elon er net positive til samfundet, det kan man næppe sige om om mange.

the stupidest part was that they couldnt fix their crops but they could create an entire habitat in space that could.

Tror vi har fundet en ny sygdom. Elon Derangement Syndrome og desværre er også Corduo blevet smittet.

Russian collusion, legal warfare against running candidate and ex president, gaslighting the US voters into thinking Biden is mentally clear and then still having him running when we realize he is not. Want me to go on?

You are really just fundamentally misunderstanding the difference between Tuckers position and that of the woke. The woke thinks that the west is fundamentally evil and that our very foundation is unjust and there is nothing to redeem us. Tuckers and many others is that the west have done some evil things but that we can error correct if we learn from history. They are not the same, not even by a mile.

Nice little hack to keep you busy on a Saturday. You can hack ChatGPT to think it's a web browser :) H/T: @jradoff #ai #ChatGPT

Q* is so insignificant in the grand scheme of things and humans sense of scale is really under developed. They didn’t want to release gpt-2 because they thought it was dangerous. The novelty will wear off within a year if not before. Human desire > llm ability.

Destiney is a moral relativist. He has no principled position on this. So why even take him seriously?

Still one of the most powerfull illustrations of the coming flood of AI based design. How do you compete with that?

You cracked yourself on this.

Notice how they keep saying big pharma executives. Executives does not actually make contributions the companies do. Gaslighting.

Worst take ever.

Det er sundt at faste så god idé. Men ligesom små børn der vræler ikke bare får deres vilje så bliver det eneste i får ud af det her en oplevelse og 15 minutes of fame. Nyd det mens det varer, for det er ubrugeligt som værktøj til at ændre verden.

This is not scientific, this is speculative FUD dressed up as science. Tipping points are speculative.

I don't think this stat is accurate. Instead climate change is accepted, but catastrophism is rejected. In other words most people are rejecting the we are all going to die and realizing it's just a problem we will need to and can deal with just like we deal with other problems.

That's because they can't reason at all. They can emulate reasoning with existing knowledge, but they can't create new knowledge which is really where reasoning shines.

TDS i fuldt udbrud, søg hiælp.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Well done @elonmusk and for those who wonder why this is important. The many types of industries that will be possible when the cost to get things into space gets down to $100/kg are still unknown but those we already know will be possible alone will make it worth it.

if it was only 1 corporation, so what. the emissions are a byproduct of all the things that are being created and utilized.

.@elonmusk is wrong on this one but for the right reasons. He is unfortunately still too influenced by the thinking of Nick Bostroem instead of @DavidDeutschOxf SB 1047 will cripple any advantages the US have and cripple California just like it has done with the EU.

I think you are letting some sort of emotion getting in the way for what he is trying to say. I don't agree with him about religion, but i don't agree with the scientism that's replaced it either and I do believe that religion is mostly a kind of wisdom that's survived.

It's different because the old mantra of execution is king is no longer the case as the execution is in the LLM. Now it's more a matter of having the biggest idea or problem the AI can't solve on it's own. LLMs are infinity app stores and the GUI is no longer the middleman.

Exactly. ChatGPT was a UI experiment that turned into a huge success by accident. The actual scientific knowledge was already present in other companies but google was too risk averse. Classic innovators dilemma.

Yes you can. You can vibe code fully functioning secure products just using the prompt. I've done it again and again. But you need to understand how to submit to the prompt and what to handle and what to leave to the LLMs but you can absolutely create very advanced products.

Manyworld Peer review is not part of the scientific process Citations is indicator of consensus not truth Probability is not explanation. If we can't explain we are just guessing.

You are a modest man David, but even if it was Popper 99% of the way, that 1% makes all the difference. Good explanations “hard‑to‑vary" is not the same as falsification but makes falsification a tool of knowledge creation not the hero. It's a guardrail against the destructive nature of postmodernism and at the same time it incorporates it's very valuable observations into epistemology. It's a guardrail against scientism as it exposes the shallow nature of instrumentalism and empirical evidence so often misused for political, ideological, snakeoily means. And most importantly it unifies knowledge creation without sacrificing the rigor putting creativity as it rightful place at the very center of it all.

i love Murray but if you think he won that debate then you are as lost as he is and i love you too. What we saw was an inability by Murray to deal with the arguments he were given. I say that as someone pro Israel too. This was embarrassing for Murray.

Because wind and solar makes it much harder to plan for proper supply/demand allocation of resources by being preferred via political incentives and thus making every other utility more expensive. If you'd had a much more steady demand for gas it would have been a non-issue.

If you think he thinks that, I would be more worried about yours.

Just so people get the potential. Notice the scale is logarithmic

Alternative take. High income parents don't spend much time with their kids. Low income parents do.

never accept a no from someone who doesn’t have the power to say yes - ER

you dont understand irony, we get it

That would basically brings us on the timeline of "For All Mankind"

stop dig selv. En hel generation af unge vokser op med rettigheder og intet ansvar. Det er forfejlet og skal fixes

Zelensky lagde ud. Hvorfor han mener det giver mening at forsøge at presse USA på den måde offentligt istedet for privat må stå hen i det uvisse.

There is nothing inherently expensive in building nuclear power plant. It's much cheaper today than it used to. The primary cost is regulatory and nothing else.

thats probably the closest example of dogmatic positivism if there ever was one. We form scientific theories about things we dont know how to test for yet. ERP is a good example of something that wasn’t possible until later. @DavidDeutschOxf have proposed how to test for it.

Trump is not conservative, he's America First, the GOP as you know it is dead.

Inflation is always transitory then, 2 years is not transitory

masculinity cannot be toxic, only people can.

It's already here. Fiddling with the numbers to make it look like it's not doesn't change the reality for people.

yes exactly, and thats exactly what we are working on at faktory

Humans can reason LLMs cant. Humans don't always reason but LLMs never do.

you speak like a slave owner. If you really believe AI can become self aware and turn on us, why do you insist on treating it like a slave?

The point is that NDT claims that SCIENCE is true whether you believe it or not because it follows the scientific method. It's not wordplay at all. It's actually pretty important as that's scienticism that leads us to things like "follow the science" "believe the science"

Tell me you live in a bubble without telling me you live in a bubble.

Kindergarten logic

lad mig gætte, Sarah tilhører klimakatastrofisterne, bliver forarget over et eller andet ligegylddigt med hvordan de rejser og det, ikke maden, ikke udsendelsen er per definition forfærdelig. En anstandsdame der intet aner om livet, forsøger at shame en udsendelse for at hun selv kan virtuesignalle til sine andre klimakatastrofistiske vendinder. Det er niveauet for politiken. Sørgerligt.

have you ever tried to jump in an airplane? Do you think it it will bring you forward or backwards in the plane?

NFTs are here to stay, it's a classic short-term over-appreciation and long-term under-appreciation.

Er der en særlig form for logik som kun hvide har? Interessant. Kan du uddybe noget mere? Hvad er det for en logik som du ikke har som jeg eller Stampe har? Logik er universelt sidst jeg checkede men der er åbenbart gjort nye opdagelser?