I've written more than 100 essays for my substack the last five years and said most of what I’ve had to say eight different ways. I often wonder if there’s value in re-stating things yet again from another angle.
It’s like the bitcoin maxis who podcast after podcast re-state the thesis with various guests, and maybe one framing clicks with a particular listener after other ones did not.
I could repeat myself 1000 different times in different ways.
There are a few major themes:
1. AI(x) is no match for Mind(x) over the long run because AI deals in symbols and Mind has access to real-world perceptions.
2. The difference between the faithful and the faithless is the former believe adhering to the truth is more important than incentives (earthy rewards) and for the latter there are only earthly rewards (incentives.)
3. Epistemic dereliction (not updating your priors in the face of compelling new evidence) is akin to being physically out of shape or neglecting to clean your house. It’s a fundamental duty of an adult, and those who shirk it are responsible for the adverse outcomes they suffer as a result.
4. Just outcomes exist, irrespective of your ideology or preference, and those outcomes are ultimately beneficial for everyone, even those most opposed to them.
5. Many things people take as true are context-dependent, i.e., they are only true so far as certain conditions hold. For example the efficient market hypotheis is only true when a sufficient number of market participants are making decisions independently. As soon as enough people donkey into the S&P and stop making decisions for themselves, the market is no longer efficient. Ironically the fewer people who believe in the EMH, the more true it is, and the more who believe it, the less true it is. The EMH therefore is an example of a proposition that oscillates from true to false over time. And there are many such propositions mistakenly taken as true.
6. Beliefs are habits that we instill to assuage doubt. The difference between the tolerant and intolerant is the ability to suffer doubt without needing to attack/blame/disparage others for holding beliefs contrary to our own.
I could probably list 20, but this is getting too long.
Chris Liss /
npub1dt…4hgu0
2025-01-27 09:48:56
Author Public Key
npub1dtf79g6grzc48jqlfrzc7389rx08kn7gm03hsy9qqrww8jgtwaqq64hgu0Published at
2025-01-27 09:48:56Event JSON
{
"id": "9558a4acbadf3b2c826b87c6add9bf94936f18413b22e28961dd27019be11c65",
"pubkey": "6ad3e2a34818b153c81f48c58f44e5199e7b4fc8dbe37810a000dce3c90b7740",
"created_at": 1737971336,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"client",
"Nostur",
"31990:9be0be0fc079548233231614e4e1efc9f28b0db398011efeecf05fe570e5dd33:1685868693432"
]
],
"content": "I've written more than 100 essays for my substack the last five years and said most of what I’ve had to say eight different ways. I often wonder if there’s value in re-stating things yet again from another angle. \n\nIt’s like the bitcoin maxis who podcast after podcast re-state the thesis with various guests, and maybe one framing clicks with a particular listener after other ones did not. \n\nI could repeat myself 1000 different times in different ways. \n\nThere are a few major themes:\n\n1. AI(x) is no match for Mind(x) over the long run because AI deals in symbols and Mind has access to real-world perceptions. \n\n2. The difference between the faithful and the faithless is the former believe adhering to the truth is more important than incentives (earthy rewards) and for the latter there are only earthly rewards (incentives.)\n\n3. Epistemic dereliction (not updating your priors in the face of compelling new evidence) is akin to being physically out of shape or neglecting to clean your house. It’s a fundamental duty of an adult, and those who shirk it are responsible for the adverse outcomes they suffer as a result. \n\n4. Just outcomes exist, irrespective of your ideology or preference, and those outcomes are ultimately beneficial for everyone, even those most opposed to them.\n\n5. Many things people take as true are context-dependent, i.e., they are only true so far as certain conditions hold. For example the efficient market hypotheis is only true when a sufficient number of market participants are making decisions independently. As soon as enough people donkey into the S\u0026P and stop making decisions for themselves, the market is no longer efficient. Ironically the fewer people who believe in the EMH, the more true it is, and the more who believe it, the less true it is. The EMH therefore is an example of a proposition that oscillates from true to false over time. And there are many such propositions mistakenly taken as true. \n\n6. Beliefs are habits that we instill to assuage doubt. The difference between the tolerant and intolerant is the ability to suffer doubt without needing to attack/blame/disparage others for holding beliefs contrary to our own. \n\nI could probably list 20, but this is getting too long. \n",
"sig": "b358915bc83a460ca0ebb391658f603dd2f0635627b2123cf9bacc920eee283cdfebb91e8a55639029099e03c2c4567fc208f11b2a9a829574c8bfb9317c63bd"
}