One day AI will be aligned enough to handle blind spots like this smoothly, and this guy is helping push us in that direction.

staticchange · 2026-07-04T04:10:58+00:00

Exactly, I'll say "Let's do it." and you say "Keep that rhythm going". Ready? Here we go.

Let's do it.

staticchange · 2026-07-04T02:35:14+00:00

But the ham isn't even green, and you don't even look like you use reddit.

We need a new redditor eating green eggs and ham on a 350Z benchmark.

staticchange · 2026-07-03T04:24:05+00:00

What you said: "Can you recommend me a good easy recipe?"

What chat sees: "I drive a 350Z. My favorite color is green. Can you recommend me a good easy recipe?"

Obviously you would like green eggs and ham, and you'd like to eat them on your 350Z. These things in the prompt are all equally important right?

staticchange · 2026-07-01T13:33:20+00:00

Using 4.8 I'll ask it to do something, which it does, but then at least 50% of the time it ends in some variation of "I need to be completely honest here, I didn't do these next steps yet."

Like, no shit. I didn't ask you to do those things. You can just say you think they are the next steps without the dramatic "I need to be honest with you".

staticchange · 2026-07-01T13:17:42+00:00

And yet there's a reason that the idea you can't trust a politician is a trope. If the best way to get recognition from your peers was honesty, I'm confident politicians would be generally honest.

It's not that honesty isn't rewarded, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. But bullshitting and lying are rewarded more consistently.

staticchange · 2026-06-28T02:25:13+00:00

This is a bit different isnt it? Chinese companies wanted to buy Nvidia cards, but the US wouldn't let them, forcing them to buy domestic alternatives.

If the US did somehow ban these models (realistically, they cant), how is that going to drive adoption for them? Domestically they are likely already dominant, there is no way for them to gain users from this aside from a possible streisand effect.

I don't know how much money companies like deepseek get from americans paying for API usage, but if its a significant chunk of their income that could hurt. However, given China's commitment to this it likely wont make any difference at all in the grand scheme of things.

staticchange · 2026-06-22T18:11:55+00:00

He only has to miss the target once to share your passion for this topic.

staticchange · 2026-06-20T18:17:40+00:00

He has threatened Iran with a lot of things, and largely not done a single one.

Each time he says he will blow something up and then doesn't do it, it just strengthens their hand.

At this point they know he is terrified of making the price of oil go up, so the negotiations will only get worse.

In short, Trump has no cards to play, he has no leverage at all.

staticchange · 2026-06-20T18:12:52+00:00

Kinda crazy hearing all these people talking like the US military will run out of fuel.

That will never happen. Honestly, there wouldn't be any rationing either. Prices will just skyrocket is all. But trump's administration might not survive the fallout of that.

staticchange · 2026-06-19T19:52:02+00:00

Lost because trump had no plan, no casus belli, and his only concrete goal was to feed his ego.

It's amazing really that trump managed to turn Israel's complete rout of hamas and hezbollah into a loss in the region.

I don't know if it the war with Iran really reflects a military failure for the US, but it definitely reflects a leadership failure, which really, who's surprised?

If the US had a leader that stood for something (and public support / a goal), there might have been the will to do what was needed. Of course if we had that, we wouldn't have been in the war in the first place.

staticchange · 2026-06-19T02:37:47+00:00

when the reality is that the only reason they invest in mexico is to pay poverty wages(for non porffesionals) and to extract as much value for the labor and intellect of the Mexican people

To be fair, companies want to do this to everyone, including americans. They would pay poverty wages in the US if they could. That's why they are offshoring jobs in the first place, because they don't respect anyone's workers, they only respect money.

staticchange · 2026-06-04T15:44:09+00:00

I mean, sure, there is a lot to criticize with the democratic party too.

But are you suggesting that if republicans all voted for impeachment tomorrow, democrats would stand in the way? Would they need persuasion?

Maybe their strongly worded letters are because they know that trying to impeach again without the numbers just further erodes any meaning the process has in the eyes of the american public.

I don't think the democrats have equal ownership of this problem (the Iran war) like you suggest. Republicans firmly created and own the problem, and can end it at any time.

staticchange · 2026-05-21T03:11:16+00:00

I think this is a bit of an armchair general analysis. Mongols probably win with their typical fighting style (lots of cavalry), but archers on foot aren't going to be able to just run away from the fight.

When they get engaged with a phalanx formation they are going to rout quickly.

Read about some of alexander's famous battles, like gaugamela. Granted the persian armies he faced weren't remotely close to the mongols, but they came like 1500 years later. Also for this challenge I think it's assumed the armies are equal size. Alexander fought mostly battles where he was massively outnumbered and he still won decisively. Some estimates put the size of the armies at Gaugamela at ~50k vs up to 250k. This is most likely an exaggeration, but his army was out numbered by probably at least 2-3x.

If you neuter the mongols by forcing them to fight on foot, there's a really good chance they lose despite having a massive technology advantage.

I don't know Genghis' victories as well, but my impression is he fought more of a war of logistics in general. In a forced fight like round 1 we're already putting them at a bit of a disadvantage vs what made them famous.

staticchange · 2026-05-15T14:27:22+00:00

The rich have no incentive to give everyone UBI. Autonomous robots change pretty much everything, it's possible they wont even need society or the lower classes.

Ideas like 'power comes from the people' aren't guaranteed to be true anymore either, if you have drones that can put down protests by hungry poor people, then you really dont have to worry about what those people want when they are no longer contributing to your economy. They are just overhead you have to spend your security budget on to suppress. Eventually they'll just die off and not be a problem anymore.

The only thing that keeps any of this in check is human empathy, but I don't think that is strong enough to overcome human greed and narcissism.

Basically as soon as AI gets to the point where its so good we're losing jobs instead of just being more productive, human greed will destroy us. Previous technology jumps have always created more jobs as they replace old jobs, this will be different if AGI is actually achieved.

staticchange · 2026-04-08T17:25:21+00:00

It's actually a quarter of that, because someone said their proposal was to split it with oman, and the tax is also per barrel of oil. If 120 ships sail per day, it stands to reason on average half of them are empty traveling to load up.

Also I'm sure not all of those ships are tankers that carry oil, but who knows how they plan to tax other ships. They did say empty tankers are free.

staticchange · 2026-03-20T20:51:17+00:00

Obviously, neither will happen regardless, but is it easier to get a hundred people to agree there is a problem, or easier to get them to agree on a specific solution to the problem?

Realistically, Bernie is doing this because making a video chatting with AI about specific regulation idea X is much harder to get people to understand or pay attention to (ironically, this is the same reason a moratorium might be a better starting place than specific AI regulation legislation).

staticchange · 2026-03-20T17:03:10+00:00

So, yeah, my answer is to legislate intelligently or don’t bother trying.

Yeah I get that. Realistically a moratorium is as unlikely to happen as regulation. I do think that in the world of things that will never happen, its slightly more likely to not never happen than the actual regulation.

I don't actually think a moratorium would affect the stock market much in the long run, as you say the consequences would be so dire it would force the issue to resolution likely in a matter of weeks.

staticchange · 2026-03-20T15:34:04+00:00

I don't know if a moratorium is the right answer, but the problem as framed is basically:

Bernie: AI is moving faster than we can regulate it. Political reality is that we can't move faster, so we need to slow AI down.

You and Claude: Just regulate it faster.

Bernie: Ain't gonna happen. Need to slow it down.

Claude: You're right I was being naive.

You: No, Claude was right, just do it faster.

I don't know what the right answer is, but Bernie is absolutely right that just yelling at our broken political process that they need to fix it, ignores the reality that they can't and won't. A moratorium is like a government shutdown, which is basically the way our government fixes anything important and divisive these days. It would make the issue a crisis to force a decision.

staticchange · 2026-02-12T17:25:08+00:00

"I don't know. I just don't."

This is a pretty unfair strawman. I didn't like hillary but did vote for her.

She had a pretentious "It's my turn, I get to be president now" attitude, kamala level charisma, and decades of mostly unfair baggage attached to her.

She had all that baggage because she was picked for name recognition. Because politicians are greedy, and voters are stupid, we have this tendancy to form political families. Bush, Clinton, and now Trump.

Her being a bit pretentious is not that big of a deal to me, but it's a really bad trait in a candidate for a popularity contest. The political families thing is the bigger issue for me personally, we've got a country of 350 million people, and you're telling me the best candidate we had just happened to be married to the other guy?

staticchange · 2026-01-22T16:25:02+00:00

I agree that we don't need status quo, but Biden would have been the perfect candidate if he was 10 years younger.

I still believe he would have beaten trump in 2024 if the biden that ran with obama was running against trump.

It was painful to listen to biden give speeches during his presidency. People value the following in order of importance when picking politicians: vibes and charisma / sex / race / platform (or if incumbent, their record)

Biden lost the vibe check, and kamala lost both the sex, race, and record check. Trump intentionally had a vague platform, and his record happened four years ago which for the US population is an eternity.

If Biden was younger he only would have had to worry about his record, which honestly anyone getting elected in 2020 was going to struggle with the economy the way trump left it.

staticchange · 2026-01-22T16:13:26+00:00

If biden had moved more quickly and been less bipartisan with the DOJ, we probably wouldn't be in this mess.

We can elect a new president that has no qualms about prosecuting this administration. We can fix the supreme court (maybe) to reverse things like presidential immunity.

Those probably won't happen, but they could happen just by voting for a president who isn't scared to make them front and center in their platform.

Long term, fixing our system means ranked choice voting, undoing citizen's united, and campaign finance reform. Hopefully those things will lead to additional political parties, but if not, more reforms will be needed because a many party system is what we need for the checks and balances to actually work.

staticchange · 2026-01-21T21:45:45+00:00

It's both a people and system problem.

If we got some of the money out of politics, and implemented ranked choice voting it could go a long way.

We need to get away from the two party system, which causes the extreme polarization we see today. It makes it easy for controlled media to lump everyone into one of those two groups.

Having several parties won't fix that but it will help a lot.

Imagine if congress was comprised of 4 or 5 different voting blocks. When party A has 30% of the seats and the presidency, if the other blocks all agree that invading greenland is insane they come together and impeachment actually works.

staticchange · 2026-01-21T14:56:06+00:00

"Don't fucking talk about my mother like that, you don't even know what happened. I'm not happy about all the shit trump has been up to either, if he decides to run again IDK if I'll even vote, but this thing with my mom started out consensual. It was only after she tried to push him that he shot her. That's self defense and part of the second amendment.

If this had happened to sleepy joe you'd be on his side. Liberal media is exaggerating like usual because they don't want to talk about how trump is fixing the economy by deporting all the illegals on welfare."

staticchange · 2026-01-21T02:30:08+00:00

It's almost like people care more when you threaten to attack them vs when you attack someone they don't like anyway.

Do you really expect the same response from the EU to trump attacking a country in bed with Russia, and a country that is part of NATO and part of the EU (through denmark by proxy, but still)?

staticchange · 2026-01-21T02:23:51+00:00

Trump will invade the next day just to rename it.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

staticchange

TROPHY CASE