pull down to refresh
I don't think "Michael Saylor thinks bitcoin is nothing more than just “digital capital,”"
I think he is still selling it to institutions with a pitch they will accept, that is minimum minimally an antagonistic. I think bitcoin is for my enemies and any argument that works for them to buy it in any form is good enough.
You don't have to buy MSTR if you don't like what he is doing, just look forward to the cheap sats if you think what he is doing will implode.
I don't think that bitcoin is the end of credit, I think that banks and other lending institutions will still want to lend to people who don't have bitcoin if they have the capacity to earn the bitcoin (or fiat) and make the repayments. In that case there is a possible market for collateral as a service. There is nothing in that statement that prevents bitcoin being a medium of exchange as well.
The problem that we are facing is one of parasocial asymmetric relationships caused by the power laws inherent in ad funded, engagement based social media, optimised for time-on-device.
Everyone comments as though they know Peter (and other public figures), and that feeling makes them frustrated because they'll almost never respond to them specifically. That frustration piggybacks on what they want to say, making it aggressive and unreasonable. Nobody would say these things to strangers in public, or if there were a real prospect of a response.
Add to that the fact that transgression harvests engagement and a share of the platform's ad revenue and we have a competitive discourse that is now a race to the bottom.
The only chance of turning back the tide of degrading public discourse is to aggregate real world event data using LLMs and build a social platform entirely oriented towards bringing people together in physical spaces, funded like Substack and Patreon but for real world creators (artists, speakers, teachers, musicians, DJs, intellectuals, etc), using the same perk system for accessing real world types of exclusivity. LLMs can do this because they solve the economic problem of efficiently aggregating event data and tracking changes, because they can structure unstructured data.
It's then possible to build a social network optimised for consensus rather than engagement, underpinned by the Pagerank algorithm.
If anything were to sour people in the current ad funded engagement based paradigm of social media, that optimises for time on device, this should.
We need an event based social media built on a patronage model, funded by transaction fees from direct debits to real world creators, that uses LLMs to aggregate event data from real communities.
I would not find Claude as useful in that context, but:
- that's utopian
- it's not very efficient in the pursuit of propagating ideas, the writer shouldn't be forced to use a paint brush when paint rollers are available.
The only solution is participation income where verification and validation are decentralised and distributed, rather than bureaucratised. If we don't do that consciously the path of least resistance is a de facto participation income for client groups of the state, like approved artists, in the name of "basic income".
I use Claude regularly for extracting the important ideas out of articles I feel that if I read I would be disappointed that I spent that amount of time. It's the equivalent of watching a video on YouTube at 2x speed. Sometimes you just need a tool or technique to discern for you whether a wall of text is worth your time before you give your time to that wall of text. Often I only learn one or two useful details from a long article whose author is conditioned to hit a word count rather than cogently and quickly getting to the fucking meat. Having read many thousands of articles before LLMs came along I feel confident that Clause is getting the salient points out better than the author could.
On the writing side it's similar. I think it's time consuming to communicate an otherwise good idea cogently, and LLMs are good at that. If I think I know what I'm going to say and how I'll say it as soon as I start typing, like this comment, I'll just type it into the field and post as is. But if I feel I need help tightening it up I'll copy paste into Claude to clean it up, then paste it back in. That makes me reader's life easier, even if they end up using an LLM on the other end.
I would be surprised if Europe wasn't the driving force of bitcoin adoption in the world in 10 years, if not for the simple facts that:
- it's jurisdictionally competitive, and European citizens can relatively easily move, meaning some countries will want to attract capital
- bitcoin thrives in chaos, and Europe is going to get politically chaotic in less than 5 years.
- European banks may watch with envy the US banks custodying bitcoin and building revenue streams from it, even if it's just conversion fees. That hate the digital euro, because unlike bitcoin it doesn't compete with bank deposits. I don't think banks have any more fear of self-custody than they do of people keeping cash under their mattress. They know they can compete on convenience, like Spotify did when torrents threatened the music industry
If this is you I can send you some information: https://tonyaldon.com/
It's because man is the only animal who can choose the game that it should play, and adapts as such to the selection pressure within a single life that other animals can only adjust to by selecting mates and breeding.
We're in a low trust society and getting lower because our consensus forming systems are succumbing to entropy. Bitcoin doesn't fix this, not immediately, but it offers stable ground for people who want to solve it to do so in future.
The way to do it is to challenge the existing paradigm of social media, to aggregate events using LLMs and optimise for consensus with a monetisation strategy that supports that process.
I am working on using LLMs to aggregate event data and tie social networks back to real world relationships, thereby creating an event update system generated by LLMs to compete with AI-slop platforms that are optimized for time-on-device.
Real world relationships is where new ideas come from, otherwise they die on the vine without propagation, because social media optimised for engagement destroys the trust networks required for good ideas to be propagated and validated efficiently.
When a measure becomes a target then players will attempt to break the correlation with the thing it's supposed to be measuring, because to win you must be optimised for winning, which is expensive, and discarding the integrity of the game is often a good strategy. If the players can do that then it's a bad game. If the players can't do that then it's a good game.
When students do exams it's explicitly a target, and a measure. Why do we not say that examination results are bad measures? And if we do say that they are bad measures why do we use them?
Think of the people doing the measuring as the selectors, like the crowds at a football match, or potential mates in a sexual competition, or the housing market. The buyers (the crowd, the female, the house hunter) measure the options against a set of criteria. The criteria that each of the criteria being used to make the buying decision are the 4 mentioned, otherwise it ceases to be a good measure.
In other words, don't hate the player, hate the game.
Agreed, I'm not open to discussion on the moral acceptability of surrogacy. It's malum in se, categorically the same murder or cannibalism.
You're obviously trying to come to a conclusion that you want to come to. In adoption, do you pay the birth mother? Or do you pay administrators of the process? Are those administrators paid to deliver you a product or service, or to ensure that the child's interests are upheld which means potentially denying you the product you want to pay for?
This is obvious so what's you're agenda, why play dumb?
Being expensive isn't the same thing as purchasing a child, obviously.
If you're asking whether other forms of exploitation exist, then yes, obviously. You can exploit people for their meat, their attention, their wombs. None of these are categorically the same as offering a product or service that increases your own capacity and capabilities, your own power, the more you do it.
Legends!!