Lot of companies talking about "expansion" and "presence" being hard in Canada if C-22 passes. We are based here in Canada. We can't flip a switch to turn off our Canadian presence. If this bill passes, we have to fully leave the country to continue operating our VPN business

Liberals Prepare For Anniversary Of October 8, The Day Israel Attacked Gaza For No Reason buff.ly/gXYIrmJ

RT @MrsDrBee: We aren’t asking you to “prove your trauma.” You’ve accused Canadians of all manner of unspeakable crimes. If those crimes ha…

The body count at the Kamloops Residential School site remains at zero. Sorry if you don't like the truth aspect of Truth and Reconciliation Day.

If you’re serious about “healing, justice, and reconciliation,” maybe stop gaslighting Canadians into thinking they’re bigots if they don’t hallucinate 215 baby corpses in “unmarked graves” at Kamloops. The fact that you sell this project under the banner of “truth” is Orwellian

Heh, a YouTuber viewer left this comment. This is a pretty good summary of the flaws of a "let the politician decide the date of his own election" system.

>be me >discover effective altruism >apparently normal charity is inefficient >why donate to random sad thing when spreadsheet can tell you optimal sad thing >fair enough >buy mosquito nets >save lives >numbers look good >feel powerful >couple years later >someone asks an innocent question >why only count people alive today >huh >future people matter too >obviously >my grandchildren shouldn't matter less just because they haven't spawned yet >reasonable.jpg >keep following logic >what about their grandchildren >also yes >what about people in 500 years >sure >5000 years >why not >500 million years >starting to get weird but morality is morality >open calculator >humanity could survive for an astronomically long time >could colonize galaxy >could have trillions upon trillions of descendants >maybe digital people too >maybe simulated civilizations >maybe dyson spheres full of happy uploaded minds >calculator starts smoking >realize currently living humans are rounding error >8 billion people suddenly looking extremely beta >future contains potentially 10^something people >can't even fit beneficiaries in google sheets >new moral priority unlocked >protect the long-term future >stop thinking in units of "people helped" >start thinking in "fraction of cosmic endowment preserved" >malaria? >terrible >but only kills existing humans >AI extinction could delete the entire light cone >nuclear war could permanently derail civilization >bad institutions could lock in terrible values for ten million years >someone invents wrong constitution in 2140 >quadrillions suffer >better fund governance workshop now >friend says maybe we should improve hospitals >explain opportunity cost >friend says hospitals are full of actual sick people >explain scope sensitivity >friend stops inviting me to dinner >need to decide what to fund >easy >expected value >suppose project has one in a million chance of preventing extinction >sounds tiny >but extinction destroys 10^50 future lives >multiply >mother of god >$10 million project has expected value of several galaxies >charity evaluation complete >someone asks where the one-in-a-million number came from >expert judgement >which expert >us >how calibrated >extremely thoughtfully >reduce estimate to one in ten million to be conservative >still beats curing cancer by 38 orders of magnitude >epistemic robustness achieved >someone says maybe project doesn't work >assign 20% chance >still astronomical >maybe project makes problem worse >assign 5% chance >still astronomical >why 5 >because 30 felt pessimistic >publish 46-page report >contains seventeen sensitivity analyses >every sensitivity analysis begins after assuming intervention has positive sign >critic says you're multiplying enormous hypothetical stakes by extremely uncertain probabilities >yes >that's literally why it's important >critic says the uncertainty might be structural rather than numerical >make probability smaller >critic says no, I mean maybe your model is wrong >make probability smaller again >critic begins rubbing temples >discover AI safety >perfect longtermist cause >AI might kill everyone >or create utopia >or seize galaxy >or tile universe with paperclips >or create billions of conscious software minds >finally a problem with numbers big enough for me >start AI safety nonprofit >mission: prevent dangerous AI >hire smartest people available >smartest people immediately start building better AI to understand dangerous AI >interesting >we must understand capabilities to understand safety >we must scale models to study alignment >we must race ahead so less responsible actors don't get there first >we must deploy systems to learn how deployment can go wrong >we must build the thing quickly because building the thing quickly is dangerous >outsider asks why the people most worried about AI apocalypse all work at AI companies >complicated field >company releases stronger model >very concerned >company begins training even stronger model >extremely concerned >company raises $14 billion >concern reaches unprecedented levels >need to influence government >future is at stake >normal democratic process too slow >politicians don't understand exponential curves >public doesn't understand x-risk >experts must guide them >who counts as expert >people who understand x-risk >who understands x-risk >our friends >someone objects that this seems politically convenient >explain we're representing future generations >future generations unavailable for comment >develop concept of value lock-in >terrifying possibility that one ideology controls civilization forever >therefore extremely important that civilization adopts correct values before lock-in >whose values >let's circle back >begin with impartial morality >end with small group of people deciding what quadrillions of hypothetical beings would want >beautiful arc >meanwhile actual humans keep doing annoying things >voting wrong >having parochial attachments >loving family more than strangers >caring about local community >getting upset when told their suffering is cosmically negligible >evolutionary biases everywhere >explain that moral intuition cannot be trusted >except intuition that future digital people count >and intuition that extinction is uniquely bad >and intuition that our probability estimates are sane >and intuition that our institutional choices improve the future >those intuitions survived peer review >someone donates $5k to local homeless shelter >inefficient >could have funded 0.0000000000003% of an AI governance researcher >think of all the simulated people you just killed >okay maybe don't phrase it that way publicly >PR team says "future generations deserve a voice" >much better >journalist asks what longtermism means >say "future people matter" >everyone agrees >great >journalist asks what follows from that >well technically we should redirect enormous resources toward low-probability interventions affecting astronomical futures >journalist raises eyebrow >return to "future people matter" >motte has entered the chat >critic: of course future people matter >me: glad we agree >critic: I don't agree that your institute knows how to help them >me: why do you hate our grandchildren >eventually notice uncomfortable implication >if future value dominates everything >then helping people today mostly matters through effects on future >education matters because future institutions >health matters because future productivity >democracy matters because future trajectory >human beings slowly become instrumental variables in their own moral philosophy >see starving child >feel compassion >check spreadsheet >child's direct welfare contribution negligible >but perhaps childhood nutrition improves national institutional quality >compassion restored >tell myself this is impartial altruism >one day assistant asks obvious question >"how do you know your intervention actually improves the far future?" >silence >open spreadsheet >increase column width >add confidence interval >assistant asks again >"no, I mean how do you know the sign is positive?" >stare into cosmic light cone >10^50 people staring back >none of them exist >none of them can tell me >none of them can falsify my assumptions >realize I have invented the perfect constituency >infinitely important >completely silent >and always represented by me

Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead. You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement. I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible. But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier. Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want. Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well. So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it. If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.

Beyond insane Human Rights Tribunal trans ruling. Another reason to shut down these frightfully undemocratic kangaroo courts. Punishing a doc for not joining in to trans a child is beyond insane. And docs are terrified to speak up. We have lost our hearts. And minds. cf CBC

You can’t stop ASI by quitting your AI job. Doesn’t work. Someone else will replace you. What you actually have to do is start a safer AI lab. Which doesn’t work. Someone else will move faster. So what you actually have to do is pass a law. Which doesn’t work. Some other country won’t ban it. So what you actually have to do is sign an international agreement. Which doesn’t work. Some other country will break it. So what you actually have to do is conquer the world. Which only works if you have ASI.

25 years after 9/11, editors still not making progress on saying no to: advocates

An important statement from Windscribe regarding the recent trade talks between Canada and the USA.

Total fake news. You have to read half-way through the story to learn they’re objecting to the rule against donating blood if you’ve been visiting places at a high risk for malaria. That’s what the Globe is calling racist.

Canada’s response to American tariffs should be incredibly simple: slash our own tariffs and trade barriers. And do not impose counter-tariffs. Think about what retaliation actually means. Trump imposes a tax on Americans who buy Canadian goods. So our response is supposed to be…imposing a tax on Canadians who buy American goods? How exactly does making Canadians poorer punish Donald Trump? If the Trump admin wants to shoot itself in the foot, the Carney government is under no obligation to shoot Canadians in the face with a twelve gauge shotgun for the sake of "reciprocity" Instead, open Canada up. Eliminate tariffs. Eliminate non-tariff barriers. Make it cheaper for Canadians and Canadian firms to buy goods and inputs from Europe, Asia, Latin America and everywhere else. Give Canadian consumers more alternatives to American products and Canadian producers cheaper inputs with which to compete. And no, free trade does not require the other guy to be smart enough to reciprocate. Historically, a huge share of trade liberalization has been unilateral. This is especially true for small economies like Canada! The best response to American protectionism is not Canadian protectionism. It is to make Canada more competitive, more open, and harder for American tariffs to hurt. This the same message I was saying in 2025. Its the same that Canadian free traders said in the 1930s when facing the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Its the same that free traders like Richard Cobden made when arguing against food taxes/tariffs in the 1830s and 1840s.

Because the on-label use is to treat precocious puberty. Treatment is stopped when appropriate to allow the normal onset of puberty. That's not how it's used to treat "trans" youth. In those young people, it's used to prevent the normal onset of puberty. The on-label treatment has a medical justification. The off-label treatment does not.

We've received confirmation that the illegally-shared blacklist of Freedom Convoy participants was shared with THOUSANDS of institutions. What's most concerning is that none of them (as far as I'm aware) pushed back publicly against this violation of rights. They just complied.

Data centers are powering the AI that is helping us cure cancer.

Attention all school board officials and worried parents. The leading Trans organ (WPATH) is finally saying that the so-called ‘science’ they have been using is only an opinion. Thank you.

The ugly truth is that socialists would rather you die waiting for public healthcare than survive thanks to private healthcare.

Ro, that’s insane. You want the state to loan money to the founder, who will then immediately give it back to the state as a wealth tax ? Meaning the state has not received any incremental receipts? What’s the point of that ? Unless of course you want the gov to own shares (something I thought you criticized) and possibly have control, of companies who underperformed, (or the funding market changed), and couldn’t pay back their loans over those 10 years ? And I’m sure the investors in those companies will be thrilled about their new partners. That will make for interesting board meetings. “Today’s first topic is trying to figure out how to motivate the founder(s). They just lost $250m of their shares in the company they founded, to the state of California. Anyone got any ideas ? “ But at least it’s amazing for state’s brand. “Cali, You make it. We take it !” Come on Ro. Ideology is not a strategy. @GavinNewsom