In a world where technofascism stalks the halls of power like a fedora-wearing xenomorph it is good to see a reminder of the original context of these discussions: making Yudkowsky and friends feel important without ever actually doing anything important.

Alex Avila really is out here fully being the postmodern neomarxist Jordan Peterson warned you about and I am so goddamn here for it.

Yeah. I think the nerd archetype fits more neatly into a framework about toxic masculinity reproducing itself even as it necessarily excludes large swathes of men. Like, for all that the stereotypical nerd is fat or neurodivergent or otherwise in some category beyond white dude, that's not what gets them bullied. (Also let's not forget that the nerd's archenemy who does the bullying is also usually a white man) It's their failure to perform hegemonic masculinity appropriately. George McFly vs Biff Tannen could be contrasted to Carlton Banks vs Will Smith. In a lot of the older pre-gamergate lore nerddom was broadly considered a kinder and more welcoming group, at least in part for this reason, and given how many fat, neurodivergent, nonwhite, nonmale, and nonstraight people identified as nerds over the years I don't think that was inaccurate.

Rather, I think two things happened that led to nerds going the way they did. Firstly they grew up and the problem of not performing masculinity correctly shifted from being on the football field to being in the boardroom and the bank account. A lot of computer and math nerds went to college and turned into tech and finance bros. Even those who didn't go into one of those fields started aging into the most profitable phase of their careers. You can see the fantasy of it become more common as the new millennium ticked along, with the narrative shifting from "showing the world we're right" to "buying their employer and forcing them to lick our boots clean". Along with this (arguably because of it), most of the rallying symbols of nerddom - comic books, anime, science fiction, fantasy, space, etc. - became the mainstream titans of culture. If the core of nerddom was a failure to appropriately participate in hegemonic masculinity and the resulting loss of social status, that loss of social status was no longer really happening. In many ways the rising diversity among nerds directly contributed to this since having women in the demographic meant it was no longer as toxic to your chances to ever get a date. Being a nerd no longer inherently meant rejecting that vision of masculinity.

But the fallout of these changes was a rift between those who rejected hegemonic masculinity and those who had merely been rejected by hegemonic masculinity. And this rift was easily exploited and magnified by fascists who linked the criticisms of nerdy past times from the former group to the latter's anxiety about losing their newfound social capital. You can find echoes of this in the discourse about "nice guys", particularly in the hand-wringing kind of reactions we saw from the Sneerable Scotts Aaronson and Siskind. And all those nonstraight nonwhite nonmales who were still on the outs with the broader culture of heteronormativity, white supremacy, and patriarchy found that they didn't actually need the "nerd" identity as strongly as the increasingly reactionary straight white dude contingent. And that basically abandoned it to the fascists.

And I'm sure he's sent several notices explicitly declaring that lack of contract between them that a judge evaluating the lien would be interested in.

Not gonna lie, "enforcing the line between ketchup and tomato sauce" isn't the sort of thing I'd expect the government to be into, but I guess I'm not mad about it?

I mean, I feel like the core problem with billionaire philanthropy isn't that they aren't effective enough at choosing causes; they're supporting exactly what they want to, whether it's saving lives and improving conditions in poor countries or making more classical music happen in rich countries. Rather the problem is that that much money can be thrown around by a single individual at all without public oversight. Like, EAs have a point in that philanthropic activities can mobilize a world-changing amount of resources. But then they do the libertarian thing of assuming that this is a necessary and inevitable fact of the world that must be worked around rather than considering the circumstances that created that ability and the degree to which the existence of billionaires requires African kids to die of malaria.

I feel like in a lot of cases the context is also sometimes important to differentiate between a real-life idiot and someone who is "Just Asking Questions."

The trite disclaimer is one thing, but explaining how you came to the specific question you're asking helps me trust that it's worth giving you an actual explanation rather than the dismissal that some folks want so they can post it on wherever the new home is for "so much for the tolerant left" bullshit.

Note that the image here isn't from the AI project, it's from actual Doom. Their own screenshots have weird glitches including a hit splat that looks like a butt in the image I've seen closest to this one.

And when they say they've "run the game" they do not mean that there was a playable version that was publicly compared to the original. Rather they released short video clips of alleged gameplay and had their evaluators try to identify if they were from the AI recreation or from actual Doom.

Even by the abysmal standards of generative AI projects this is a hell of a grift.

See, I actually agree with making prompts polite and respectful. Not because the model is going to care, but because that kind of respect should be automatic and habitual and using it unnecessarily is better than being a dick to the checkout guy because you're tired one day.

He does mention that you'll need a military to defend your borders, though of course he's more concerned about opportunistic "legacy governments" taking his iceborne super country away from him rather than pirates showing up to fish anything valuable out of the sea as it all predictably and rapidly falls apart.

Gee, I wonder if there were any major shake-ups in the Ukrainian government circa 2014 that could have explained this change in tune.

Ukraine wasn't able to join NATO because of active territorial disputes regarding Russia's 2014 illegal annexation of Crimea. The 2022 invasion and intervening Russian-backed fighting in Donestk and Luhansk were naked imperial land grabs trying to force Ukraine back into the Russian sphere of influence despite their democratic processes repeatedly trying to move towards the EU.

Or in simpler terms, imperialism is actually still bad when Russia does it and it's weird that you don't seem to understand that.

I got as far as "he says crypto is bad but also didn't make any money in crypto!" before I couldn't go any farther. Up until that point the author was at least doing a pretty competent job of using negative space (i.e. not engaging with the specific issues of racism, cult of personality, etc.) and using sufficiently boring prose to avoid seeming completely insane.