It’s time KYC and AML rules die. The entire concept never made sense. It ads friction. It’s an illegitimate and unethical use of government power. It does no net good and stops virtually no crime. Time for it to go.

I'm super excited to announce @Dashpay Core v24 rc.1!🧵 - Decentralized Shared Masternodes - AssetUnlock v2; Fast Platform → Core transfers - CoinJoin and Privacy improvements - UI / UX overhauls for voting, making MNs - Improved Performance & Refactoring

I think this is about to get a lot bigger.

The perverse thing about the Effective Altruism cult is that they don't really want to ban AI. They want to stop *you* from using it, while they become the high priests who wield its power and decide who gets access.

- You: "My stocks went up 10%." - Government: "Congratulations! That's taxable." - You: "But inflation was 8%. I only really gained 2%." - Government: "We tax the full 10%." - You: "You tax the inflation you created?" - Government: "Capital gains are capital gains." - You: "So you profit from debasing my money twice?" - Government: "You're not an economist."

The cop should be fired and this man should be paid restitution. The prosecutor should also loose their job. 2 years is far more then enough time to realize you fucked up. Also, what happened to the right to a speedy trial? There is zero justification for threatening someone with deadly force in this situation. He could have calmly walked up and handed him a ticket, not that he actually deserved one.

I have nothing against Zcash, but it's valuating compared to Dash is absurd. Dash has the same privacy tech, but it's way faster, and has more transaction volume than Zcash. 33x higher marketcap is insane.

AI isn't magic. It can't automatically do whatever sci-fi nonsense people make up, even if the people making it up have a degree or work at a tech company.

I thought the doomerism was dumb before, but this is pants on head retarded.

Either the leaders of the frontier labs are competent and honest, meaning they will do proper review and safety checks on their products before shipping and everything will be fine. Or, they are full of it and we should not trust what they say.

Last month I wrote about how we can build a positive and safe future for everyone: meta.com/thefutureisforevery… Every lab has the responsibility and incentive to move at the pace required to train its models safely, and the ability to take its own actions to ensure that happens. The reality is: - People won't want to use agents that are misaligned with them and that don't do what they ask, so labs have a strong natural incentive to make their models more aligned. There is a lot of debate about slowing progress on capabilities until alignment catches up. My view is that trust and alignment are quickly becoming the most important capabilities that will differentiate agents and models. Any lab that doesn't focus on alignment will fall behind. - Labs face significant liability if their models cause harm, so they have a strong incentive to prevent this as well. Meta delayed shipping Muse for several months to focus on safety and security. We didn't call for everyone else to do this before we would. We just did it as part of our day-to-day work because it was clearly the right thing for people and for us. I'm proud of the security foundations we've built. - Engaging independent evaluators and advisors is industry best practice. MSL already does this today in several areas because it helps produce better work. Other labs can just do this too. In general, it would be helpful for there to be a larger and more diverse ecosystem of evaluators. - Committing the significant majority of compute towards serving people rather than racing towards recursive self-improvement is one of the best ways to ensure we develop this technology safely. Meta has made this commitment and other labs can do this as well. I believe the key to building a positive future for everyone is maintaining the right balance of power. This is within our power to do.

Sanity on AI. Thanks @DavidSacks piped.video/watch?v=8ox3tc…

I feel so much safer.

So the play is to use fear of AI to try and set up one world government?

When Zuckerberg is the last man standing for liberty. 😅

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.

The AI labs are private companies, if they want to slow down that's their business. If they want the government to mandate what software other people and companies are allowed to write that's a violation of the first amendment.

Even if AI did have a 10% chance of killing us all, I would rather roll those dice than live in commie doomer dystopia.