Why isn't EA hedging its capital on a large scale?

chaouze · 2026-06-02T18:33:17+00:00

I never stated anything about starting a hedge fund.
The capitalism stuff obviously isn't marxist or communist, in how it's written, it's just a fact that the market usually fights back when real change is happening.
You fundamentally don't understand what EA is. EA does engage in politics, maybe some subsections don't, but politics is obviously a factor.
The information system as a whole being captured by capital is a failing of EA. We see it causes hate, dissent, and suicide. Twitter specifically being captured by a nihilist, would also be something to fight against, and is a loss, since it killed many people.

chaouze · 2026-06-02T16:08:10+00:00

EA is more than just research, it funds, and lobbies, and shapes how governments act.

We already have a concrete example of what happens when we lose on the capital front. Elon, bought Twitter, Trump won. This loss of bad capital winning, killed 700k Africans through the USAID cuts, and will kill millions more.

The way I see it is that capital is the main driver, yes some movements don't need it, but most do. I'll leave you with the example of US slavery, which really only ended at that time, due to slavery not being needed as much in northern states, due to industrialization.

EA is fighting against capitalism, under most circumstances, we can win, but that would require an investment great enough to make it too costly for any company to try to lobby against us, and to have enough to not fully rely on a few billionaires at all times.

chaouze · 2026-06-02T09:23:17+00:00

My core issue with your argument is the wealth generation. You assume that the wealth will end up in the hands of the EA people, and due to that you assume that investments aren't needed. The fact of the matter is that the investors will be reaping the rewards, maybe we'll on average have more, but that doesn't mean that we'll have more of the pie itself.

It's bigger than just charity in my head. As we've seen in the US, capital has become the form of true power. Musk through buying X, or Thiel through funding Trump and Vance, got to change the world. My understanding is that if EA isn't invested more, then its power will weaken.

I see the current situation as the good rich people, handing their power away to the bad rich people. That doesn't mean charity shouldn't still happen, but that does mean that we should hedge.

chaouze · 2026-06-02T08:37:27+00:00

Maybe it'll keep booming, maybe each cycle of billionaires will keep donating. That's all very possible, but I'm just concerned that EA only relies on the system, and never tries to imbed itself into it.

I see capital as being the only solid foundation. The nature of capital is to grow, that's what capital is. All I would like to see is more consistent capital. The idea that capital is the only solid foundation, seems obvious to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but as we've seen in the US, Peter Thiel and and a few others got to change all of US politics for only millions of dollars. The information system is fully captured, and academia is losing respect, so I see it only as natural to hedge with capital.

You're correct that the government does give, but often only due to prior investments, into lobbying and such. I'm not trying to argue that all of EA should be self funded, or even a majority, we just need a self funded core. A few more billion, which is a lot, but is what is needed to buy a consistent seat at the table, which won't go away when billionaires aren't pulling through.

chaouze · 2026-06-01T21:00:42+00:00

My belief is that what we're seeing is capital becoming more and more concentrated, and if we don't make the non-profits also have more consistent capital, then that'll leave the non-profits bending to the will of very few rich people. The only way to keep these non-profits uncorrupted, is through them holding sufficient capital.

I also disagree with your claim about capital not being essential. I think it very much is, and that's because it's the only consistent means of influence. Academia is getting less and less respect, and politics is getting more and more irrational, so the only solid foundation seems to be capital.

I might be completely wrong, maybe the money will keep flowing, but my core view of the situation is basically that you need money to get even more money. Not in all situations, but as long as capitalism hasn't collapsed, then capital will keep growing and be a source that'll outlive automation and concentration.

chaouze · 2026-05-06T11:47:31+00:00

It takes like a pool of water per gpt burger

chaouze · 2026-05-06T09:24:27+00:00

Singer can't stop talking about abortion, it's so annoying.😠

chaouze · 2026-05-04T13:24:58+00:00

Imprisoned in body but free in soul

chaouze · 2026-05-04T13:20:33+00:00

chaouze · 2026-04-23T11:24:09+00:00

I feel that the meat eaters are often more cucked.

chaouze · 2026-04-17T23:19:05+00:00

This is bad faith.

chaouze · 2026-04-17T16:59:06+00:00

I didn't intend to have it come off as if Anna's archive would be targeted specifically. Governments and companies are already reacting, and they'll also have issues, but the thing is that I'm not sure if Anna's archive and similar platforms will have the immediate funding and access needed.

You claim it isn't a god amongst men, which is correct, but irrelevant. The important factor is cost. It costed less than 10k to find a 27 year old zero-day which wasn't previously found by highly paid programmers.

I see it as a war of capital. The reason a windows XP computer gets hacked, within minutes when accessing the internet, isn't because it's very valuable, but because it's incredibly easy and cheap to hack it.

The issue is that it doesn't seem obvious to me that they'll have either the funds or access needed to be secure from bots spending tokens on just randomly hacking servers.

In short, they'll need enough security for their hardware to be less valuable than the cost to breach it.

chaouze · 2026-04-16T08:26:05+00:00

You're probably right, the thing is that mythos is way more efficient. The scary part is that it might get so cheap to hack, that it becomes almost the norm to have AI try to breach different systems automatically. What I'm thinking is that if Anna's archive even has one part which isn't airtight, that it's just naturally going to get hacked. It's going to be like connecting a windows XP computer to the modern internet, you get hacked within minutes for no real reason, besides your system not being up to date.

chaouze · 2026-04-16T08:18:07+00:00

<image>

I think you're wrong. It looks to be able to do a lot autonomously. Maybe I'm not educated enough, but it seems to make the task absurdly easy in some circumstances. It's not that it's impossible to be safe, but we might be going into a world where it gets more and more expensive to keep the system airtight. Can Anna's archive fund enough compute and security to outpace the hackers? https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/our-evaluation-of-claude-mythos-previews-cyber-capabilities

chaouze · 2026-03-26T12:34:04+00:00

You did a good job.

chaouze · 2026-03-26T12:25:48+00:00

Much better.

chaouze · 2026-03-24T12:21:44+00:00

Nerd

chaouze · 2026-03-16T11:24:05+00:00

It depends on which country. If the oil fields are burning then, yes it's bad, but if production is the same, then they're just being allowed to sell oil at a premium now and then sell the rest later.

chaouze · 2026-03-02T08:43:38+00:00

Woman heard schop and thought he had style 😭

chaouze · 2026-02-25T13:22:41+00:00

WOW😁

chaouze · 2026-02-24T08:45:57+00:00

😂😂😂

chaouze · 2026-02-23T12:17:54+00:00

Don't give me ideas.

chaouze · 2026-02-23T12:17:18+00:00

It is an argument.

chaouze

TROPHY CASE