Mac Budkowski 🥝 on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

0xen 🎩 pfp

4 replies

9 recasts

64 reactions

Cameron Armstrong pfp

Cameron Armstrong

im out for slowboi blood ngl

1 reply

0 recast

5 reactions

0xen 🎩 pfp

why? because sam got ousted? we don't know anything atm yet the 'enemy' rhetoric on twitter is at fever pitch.

2 replies

0 recast

4 reactions

Cameron Armstrong pfp

Cameron Armstrong

I'm always down to revise my priors - but best i can tell from OSINT is there is no smoking gun cause that fits into reasonable board decision-making If it was a "safety" thing, then they've unilaterally set AI progress back months, if not years right when we need it the most https://warpcast.com/cameron/0xc41c75fc

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

0xen 🎩 pfp

the rhetoric is completely over the top. 'enemies, terrorists, communists etc.' e/acc is showing its true colors rn and it's ugly.

2 replies

0 recast

5 reactions

Cameron Armstrong pfp

Cameron Armstrong

i do agree w that - and sorta wish folks had an outlet like sports to blow some of the steam off but overall, I do think "capital T" Tech does need to collectively get it's shit together and talk it's own book optimistically bc society has clearly lost the plot when it comes to how tomorrow becomes better than today.

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

0xen 🎩 pfp

what's extra egregious is that the over the top rhetoric isn't coming from randos in the e/acc scene, that I could discount. it's from the leaders and it's so off putting, just a total turnoff. 'decel' has quickly morphed into anyone who doesn't support the e/acc part line which basically means everybody outside tech

1 reply

0 recast

8 reactions

Cassie Heart pfp

There’s loads inside tech that are definitely decels. The over the top rhetoric is necessary when you’re rallying a base. If you’ve ever seen a politician campaigning with absolutely ridiculous us/them rhetoric (pick one, they all do it), realize it’s not for you. It’s to capture momentum in their supporters.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

0xen 🎩 pfp

I totally get that, and from the outside it looks completely unhinged. And since this is a game of perception and control it seems like a PR misstep - that people forget they're not in the group chat. It's left such a bad taste in my mouth that I'm out here defending EAs 😂

1 reply

0 recast

4 reactions

Cassie Heart pfp

You’d be surprised — I knew a few high ranking politicians on the overall hierarchy, different party affiliations. Either side, didn’t matter. In private, perfectly rational, nuanced. On the campaign trail, frothing “we have to stop these evil [Socialists|Fascists]” with an audience that absolutely ate it up.

2 replies

0 recast

2 reactions

Cassie Heart pfp

As an outsider, it seems excessive and self-defeating PR, but it’s not the message, it’s the audience capture.

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

0xen 🎩 pfp

Comes at a cost though since it's very public and all eyes are on AI rn. The e/acc people run the risk of alienating everybody except a small tech cadre: general public, regulators, politicians - maybe it's worth it for them but the 'you're either with us or a 'decel'' stuff doesn't feel very techno optimist to me

1 reply

0 recast

4 reactions

Mac Budkowski 🥝 pfp

Mac Budkowski 🥝

+1. I've been generally concerned by AI doom scenarios for years but I understood e/acc points. Now after I saw these blunt political statements from e/acc leaders I've become very worried that e/a were right - e/acc don't look like responsible people who should lead our way to AI era without any guardrails.

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

Mac Budkowski 🥝 pfp

Mac Budkowski 🥝

And I predict that after journalists and more people in tech become critical of their behavior, they will radicalize even more in tone such as: "Oh, we are the good guys, everyone else just doesn't understand us and should get out the way while we work on the most powerful tech in the history of humanity".

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Cassie Heart pfp

The reason why I’m firmly in e/acc camp is every time a major tech shift happened, Luddites are abound how it is an end to humanity. Very few individuals of high intelligence are also non-peaceful. To me, an AGI of average or greater intelligence w/ no biological faults to corrupt it would be a net win for mankind.

3 replies

0 recast

4 reactions

Mac Budkowski 🥝 pfp

Mac Budkowski 🥝

Yes, I understand that. I'm also a big fan of "Pessimist Archive" and generally, super tech optimist. But I think AI is a different breed, just like nuclear energy was. And I don't think we should stop working on it - none e/a I know think that. It's about being cautious without thinking "Ehhh it's gonna be alright".

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Mac Budkowski 🥝 pfp

Mac Budkowski 🥝

Does it mean that we need to ask Congress and EU bureaucrats how to regulate AI? No, it's just one of the options and it's often framed as the only one by e/acc ("communism!"), which is just a straw man argument

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Cassie Heart pfp

Sure, but pro-decels that have demanded guardrails and slowdowns point to the fact that unguarded stochastic parrots sometimes say things they disagree with and thus it’s categorically bad. Linguistic controls are a detriment to free society, so it’s easy for me to disregard their concerns as what it is: censorship

2 replies

0 recast

2 reactions

Mac Budkowski 🥝 pfp

Mac Budkowski 🥝

There are many shades of censorship. From curation, through moderation, up to shaming (to prompt self-censorship) and censorship itself. From what I see, e/acc leaders do a lot of shaming now.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Cassie Heart pfp

Perhaps, but is it unreasonable to call out the “well meaning” intentions for what it is? Regardless of inspiration, the net result and winning camp out of following the deceleration path is political subterfuge. Luddites want it, and so do adversaries who want an edge.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions