slibhb

I suspect I have a higher bar for "knowing about something" than you. I know about Thiel's views because I've read his essays. I know comparatively little about his business dealings, and everything I do know is hearsay.

Ultimately people disagree about things and I think your worldview doesn't really have room for that, which seems unfortunate.

What does "support" even mean? He's not up for election. My interaction with Peter Thiel has been listening to interviews he's given and reading essays he's written. I don't know much about his companies. While I don't agree with him across the board (for example, I strongly believe in liberal democracy), I think he's worth engaging with.

It's bizarre to read through threads like this and see all the vitriol. I'm open to critiques but I mostly just see lazy meme-level comments.

Every time Thiel gets mentioned, people heap scorn. Even more than Mark Zuckerberg.

I find Thiel interesting. His views on stagnation are widely influential and seem to have presaged a broad revaluation of rules and regulations that have accumulated over the years (including zoning rules).

Right, but those mathematicians whose work might have been stolen were...using LLMs to attack the problem.

As far as I know, the controversy involves a pair of mathematicians using LLMs to solve the problem and another group who used LLMs to solve the problem. No one seems to be disputing the solution itself.

> Yes it is my personal belief that we are definitely much much better at creating than AI models, which the only thing they do is output an empty and dull regurgitation of its training. There's nothing truly personal and original coming out of it when it comes to creating music, literature, art, etc.

I guess those AI models were trained on solutions to Navier-Stokes and a proof of the Quasi-Riemann hypothesis.

> Do you know why I am so against all this hype? Because it is a poison for the mind, it deprives you from thinking from understanding and from questioning things by ourselves, and I'm already witnessing AI junkies that consume and take for granted every single output from a model.

This argument has been made against every human innovation, including writing. Maybe it's true this time but I doubt it.

> Why think if you can now outsource it to a computer, right?

I was already outsourcing plenty to the wikipedia, do-yourself-youtube videos, and so on. This doesn't seem that different.

Most people are doing something morally wrong by not having children, or only having 1 child. That seems like a reasonable conclusion to me.

However, I wouldn't push the point. My view is that "life is good so having children is good" but not "you must have as many children as possible." There are various ways I might justify this philosophically, but I would just say that parents have a special obligation to their children and, if you have too many children, it's impossible to fulfill that obligation. So you should have as many children as you can effectively parent.

I believe in free speech. It doesn't take "perfection," actually the opposite.

"CF might shut me down" applies to some groups but not most and certainly not to No Kings

It's not a fixed pool! The pool can grow.

Also wait times are longer in Canada. And an anecdote: I went to the ER last Monday. No wait. And had a referral to a surgeon that same day. And surgery on Wednesday!

This is a real problem but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Zuckerberg or Meta in particular. The article admits it's unlikely that this hour-long ban was a top-down decision. People get banned with no recourse on all the big platforms.

But yes, a solution is for people to host their own content/sites. Or "protocols not platforms"

A strong culture of free speech is the clear solution to the problem you're describing. I.e. when both political factions censor, the only solution is a strong preference for free speech regardless of who is in power.

France has great healthcare but the downside of socialized medicine is rationing.

Because they're scientists and not activists.

> Millenials talk about not wanting children because they don't want to subject a new generation to this absolute shitshow of a planet

They often list overpopulation as a reason. But yes, it's not the only reason they give.

As an antidote to this kind of mindless negativity, just consider whether any individual human is happy to have been born. It seems very clear to me that most people enjoy being alive and so having children is moral on utilitarian grounds.