From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jun 1 10:01:21 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 06:01:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Gene clock predicts time to death in humans Message-ID: *The following article was in the May 27, 2026 issue of the journal Nature: * *Gene clock predicts time to death in humans and assesses ?biological? age* *John K Clark See what's on my list at Extropolis * *q;'* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Mon Jun 1 18:34:52 2026 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2026 11:34:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] DIY Quantum Protection for Bitcoin Message-ID: <6c0655a36b305016530bea8c96a70d69@sollegro.com> Ok, so I think I have come up with a simple low technology method of safeguarding bitcoin against Quantum computing algorithms like Shor's. First you need to but 2 hardware cold wallets (e.g. Trezor, Ledger, etc.) Create a seed phrase to generate a public key with one of them and send your BTC to it. When you want to spend or transfer bitcoin, you set up (or reset) a seed phrase on your second wallet. Spend whatever bitcoin you need to and then transfer the remaining balance to the second wallet. When you spend/send bitcoin, the public key of the sending wallet gets exposed on the blockchain in a way that a quantum computer could use it to crack the private key for the spending wallet, so the idea is to empty that wallet completely. The public key of the receiving wallet is kept secret because it does not show up anywhere during the transaction. The only private key that a quantum computer could derive would be for the empty wallet that you no longer use. Then when you want to spend/send money from your second wallet, factory reset the original wallet and create a new seed phrase for it to generate a novel public. Spend your bitcoin from the second wallet and immediately send the remaining balance to the, now reset 1st wallet that has a brand new seed phrase / public key that has never been exposed on the blockchain and cannot be used to hack your private key. Then, when you want to perform another transaction, rinse and repeat. Always resetting and reseeding the unused wallet to get a fresh public key before use. With two hardware wallets, you should be able to keep this up indefinitely. It is a little bit of a hassle, but from what I understand of the bitcoin protocol, it should keep your bitcoins safe from quantum computing algorithms with existing technology. Let me know if you find a weakness in this scheme. Stuart LaForge From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jun 1 19:28:22 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 15:28:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] DIY Quantum Protection for Bitcoin In-Reply-To: <6c0655a36b305016530bea8c96a70d69@sollegro.com> References: <6c0655a36b305016530bea8c96a70d69@sollegro.com> Message-ID: After you've spent from the one wallet, it lays empty until being reset just before spending from the other wallet, right? If so, then assuming the first wallet's key is vulnerable, in theory someone could try to hack in using the first key and spoof the factory reset function, so what you later thought was a reset just sets up the first wallet (which you're transferring funds into) so it'll have a key the attacker already knows. The attacker then waits for you to spend again and transfer funds into the first wallet. In theory this could be minimized by performing the reset right after spending funds and transferring money out, but that still leaves a brief window of vulnerability. On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 2:35?PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat wrote: > > Ok, so I think I have come up with a simple low technology method of > safeguarding bitcoin against Quantum computing algorithms like Shor's. > > First you need to but 2 hardware cold wallets (e.g. Trezor, Ledger, > etc.) Create a seed phrase to generate a public key with one of them and > send your BTC to it. > > When you want to spend or transfer bitcoin, you set up (or reset) a seed > phrase on your second wallet. Spend whatever bitcoin you need to and > then transfer the remaining balance to the second wallet. When you > spend/send bitcoin, the public key of the sending wallet gets exposed on > the blockchain in a way that a quantum computer could use it to crack > the private key for the spending wallet, so the idea is to empty that > wallet completely. The public key of the receiving wallet is kept secret > because it does not show up anywhere during the transaction. The only > private key that a quantum computer could derive would be for the empty > wallet that you no longer use. > > Then when you want to spend/send money from your second wallet, factory > reset the original wallet and create a new seed phrase for it to > generate a novel public. Spend your bitcoin from the second wallet and > immediately send the remaining balance to the, now reset 1st wallet that > has a brand new seed phrase / public key that has never been exposed on > the blockchain and cannot be used to hack your private key. > > Then, when you want to perform another transaction, rinse and repeat. > Always resetting and reseeding the unused wallet to get a fresh public > key before use. With two hardware wallets, you should be able to keep > this up indefinitely. It is a little bit of a hassle, but from what I > understand of the bitcoin protocol, it should keep your bitcoins safe > from quantum computing algorithms with existing technology. Let me know > if you find a weakness in this scheme. > > Stuart LaForge > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jun 1 19:38:12 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 15:38:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [Extropolis] DIY Quantum Protection for Bitcoin In-Reply-To: <6c0655a36b305016530bea8c96a70d69@sollegro.com> References: <6c0655a36b305016530bea8c96a70d69@sollegro.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 2:34?PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *> Ok, so I think I have come up with a simple low technology method of > safeguarding bitcoin against Quantum computing algorithms like Shor's.First > you need to but 2 hardware cold wallets (e.g. Trezor, Ledger, etc.) Create > a seed phrase to generate a public key with one of them and send your BTC > to it.When you want to spend or transfer bitcoin, you set up (or reset) a > seed phrase on your second wallet. Spend whatever bitcoin you need to and > then transfer the remaining balance to the second wallet. When you > spend/send bitcoin, the public key of the sending wallet gets exposed on > the blockchain in a way that a quantum computer could use it to crack the > private key for the spending wallet, so the idea is to empty that wallet > completely. The public key of the receiving wallet is kept secret because > it does not show up anywhere during the transaction. The only private key > that a quantum computer could derive would be for the empty wallet that you > no longer use.Then when you want to spend/send money from your second > wallet, factory reset the original wallet and create a new seed phrase for > it to generate a novel public. Spend your bitcoin from the second wallet > and immediately send the remaining balance to the, now reset 1st wallet > that has a brand new seed phrase / public key that has never been exposed > on the blockchain and cannot be used to hack your private key.* > > > > > > > *Then, when you want to perform another transaction, rinse and repeat. > Always resetting and reseeding the unused wallet to get a fresh public key > before use. With two hardware wallets, you should be able to keep this up > indefinitely. It is a little bit of a hassle, but from what I understand of > the bitcoin protocol, it should keep your bitcoins safe from quantum > computing algorithms with existing technology. Let me know if you find a > weakness in this scheme.* *Keeping the public key unexposed is a well known defense and it does offer a little protection but the trouble is the public key isn't just exposed when you initiate a transaction, it's exposed from the moment the transaction hits the holding area where unconfirmed transactions wait in a decentralized queue before being processed by miners, depending on how busy the network is that could be anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours*, and* in the quantum world *that is a* long time*;* a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could crack your private key faster than block confirmation time. Also, if anybody has ever sent to an address more than once then those coins are already exposed to a future quantum attacker*. *And when it comes to early bitcoins, like Satoshi's one million bitcoins, the public key is directly in the output script and so the coins are already fully exposed.* > > *John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Tue Jun 2 01:54:59 2026 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 21:54:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] DIY Quantum Protection for Bitcoin In-Reply-To: <6c0655a36b305016530bea8c96a70d69@sollegro.com> References: <6c0655a36b305016530bea8c96a70d69@sollegro.com> Message-ID: My understanding is they most wallets already do this by following BIP 32 and BIP 39, which use a secret seed phrase (usually 12-24) seed words, to deterministically generate new public/private key pairs for every transaction, with the change from any transaction always sent to a new address so the same key pair is never used again after the public key is exposed. I implemented this in a few hundred lines of python if anyone is interested to see how it works: https://github.com/gcnaccount/pywallet Jason On Mon, Jun 1, 2026, 2:35?PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Ok, so I think I have come up with a simple low technology method of > safeguarding bitcoin against Quantum computing algorithms like Shor's. > > First you need to but 2 hardware cold wallets (e.g. Trezor, Ledger, > etc.) Create a seed phrase to generate a public key with one of them and > send your BTC to it. > > When you want to spend or transfer bitcoin, you set up (or reset) a seed > phrase on your second wallet. Spend whatever bitcoin you need to and > then transfer the remaining balance to the second wallet. When you > spend/send bitcoin, the public key of the sending wallet gets exposed on > the blockchain in a way that a quantum computer could use it to crack > the private key for the spending wallet, so the idea is to empty that > wallet completely. The public key of the receiving wallet is kept secret > because it does not show up anywhere during the transaction. The only > private key that a quantum computer could derive would be for the empty > wallet that you no longer use. > > Then when you want to spend/send money from your second wallet, factory > reset the original wallet and create a new seed phrase for it to > generate a novel public. Spend your bitcoin from the second wallet and > immediately send the remaining balance to the, now reset 1st wallet that > has a brand new seed phrase / public key that has never been exposed on > the blockchain and cannot be used to hack your private key. > > Then, when you want to perform another transaction, rinse and repeat. > Always resetting and reseeding the unused wallet to get a fresh public > key before use. With two hardware wallets, you should be able to keep > this up indefinitely. It is a little bit of a hassle, but from what I > understand of the bitcoin protocol, it should keep your bitcoins safe > from quantum computing algorithms with existing technology. Let me know > if you find a weakness in this scheme. > > Stuart LaForge > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Tue Jun 2 02:20:07 2026 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 22:20:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [Extropolis] DIY Quantum Protection for Bitcoin In-Reply-To: References: <6c0655a36b305016530bea8c96a70d69@sollegro.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 1, 2026, 3:39?PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 2:34?PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *> Ok, so I think I have come up with a simple low technology method of >> safeguarding bitcoin against Quantum computing algorithms like Shor's.First >> you need to but 2 hardware cold wallets (e.g. Trezor, Ledger, etc.) Create >> a seed phrase to generate a public key with one of them and send your BTC >> to it.When you want to spend or transfer bitcoin, you set up (or reset) a >> seed phrase on your second wallet. Spend whatever bitcoin you need to and >> then transfer the remaining balance to the second wallet. When you >> spend/send bitcoin, the public key of the sending wallet gets exposed on >> the blockchain in a way that a quantum computer could use it to crack the >> private key for the spending wallet, so the idea is to empty that wallet >> completely. The public key of the receiving wallet is kept secret because >> it does not show up anywhere during the transaction. The only private key >> that a quantum computer could derive would be for the empty wallet that you >> no longer use.Then when you want to spend/send money from your second >> wallet, factory reset the original wallet and create a new seed phrase for >> it to generate a novel public. Spend your bitcoin from the second wallet >> and immediately send the remaining balance to the, now reset 1st wallet >> that has a brand new seed phrase / public key that has never been exposed >> on the blockchain and cannot be used to hack your private key.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Then, when you want to perform another transaction, rinse and repeat. >> Always resetting and reseeding the unused wallet to get a fresh public key >> before use. With two hardware wallets, you should be able to keep this up >> indefinitely. It is a little bit of a hassle, but from what I understand of >> the bitcoin protocol, it should keep your bitcoins safe from quantum >> computing algorithms with existing technology. Let me know if you find a >> weakness in this scheme.* > > > *Keeping the public key unexposed is a well known defense and it does > offer a little protection but the trouble is the public key isn't just > exposed when you initiate a transaction, it's exposed from the moment the > transaction hits the holding area where unconfirmed transactions wait in a > decentralized queue before being processed by miners, depending on how busy > the network is that could be anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours*, > and* in the quantum world *that is a* long time*;* a sufficiently > powerful quantum computer could crack your private key faster than block > confirmation time. Also, if anybody has ever sent to an address more than > once then those coins are already exposed to a future quantum attacker*. *And > when it comes to early bitcoins, like Satoshi's one million bitcoins, the > public key is directly in the output script and so the coins are already > fully exposed.* > The most scalable quantum computing technology is the "neutral atom" quantum computer, which is estimated to take at least a week to break an elliptic curve key, so following proper key hygiene one should be protected even after cryptographically relevant quantum computers emerge. Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jun 2 12:17:33 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 08:17:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [Extropolis] DIY Quantum Protection for Bitcoin In-Reply-To: References: <6c0655a36b305016530bea8c96a70d69@sollegro.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 10:21?PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> The most scalable quantum computing technology is the "neutral atom" > quantum computer, * *So say the neutral atom people, but plenty would dispute their claim. * *> which is estimated to take at least a week to break an elliptic curve > key, so following proper key hygiene one should be protected even after > cryptographically relevant quantum computers emerge* *The amount of time a quantum computer would need to solve a problem depends on the speed of its individual components, the number of errors those components produce (because the fewer errors the less time you need to correct those errors), and the number of Qubits the computer has. Neutral Atom is just one of the technologies being pursued, they all have advantages and disadvantages.* *As of today there is no clear front runner but Superconducting Josephson Junctions is probably slightly ahead, it certainly has the most money behind it being backed by IBM, Google and others. Its individual components are the second fastest of the lot and the chips can be manufactured using existing conventional semiconductor techniques. Scaling up is difficult, however recently there has been significant progress. * *Neutral Atom is the second easiest to scale up to a large number of Qubits, but it also produces more errors then other technologies, and the errors produced are the most difficult to correct. Its individual components are also very slow. * *Trapped Ions produce the second fewest errors and the errors that are produced are easy to correct, but the gates are extremely slow and it's not clear how to scale up to a useful size.* *Silicon Spin Qubits is being pursued by Intel, it would give you the second smallest Qbits and second densest array of them, and it would be compatible with existing chip manufacturing technology, but the electronics needed to control it are quite difficult and very complex.* *Photonic Quantum Computing can operate at room temperature and long-range communication is easy, but single-photon generation is required and such generators are difficult to make, and its two-Qubit gates produce a lot of errors. * *Topological Quantum Computing is BY FAR the most ambitious approach and it's the technology that Microsoft is pursuing, if they are successful it will blow all the other methods completely out of the water in every consideration you care to name, except compatibility with existing semiconductor manufacturing techniques. But unlike all the other methods, which are just engineering challenges, most physicists are only about 85% certain that such a machine is scientifically possible. * *The point I'm trying to make is that if your bitcoin security is based on a hope that you will be able to outrun a large fault tolerant quantum computer then I fear you are headed towards an economic catastrophe. * *John K Clark* > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026, 3:39?PM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 2:34?PM Stuart LaForge wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *> Ok, so I think I have come up with a simple low technology method of >>> safeguarding bitcoin against Quantum computing algorithms like Shor's.First >>> you need to but 2 hardware cold wallets (e.g. Trezor, Ledger, etc.) Create >>> a seed phrase to generate a public key with one of them and send your BTC >>> to it.When you want to spend or transfer bitcoin, you set up (or reset) a >>> seed phrase on your second wallet. Spend whatever bitcoin you need to and >>> then transfer the remaining balance to the second wallet. When you >>> spend/send bitcoin, the public key of the sending wallet gets exposed on >>> the blockchain in a way that a quantum computer could use it to crack the >>> private key for the spending wallet, so the idea is to empty that wallet >>> completely. The public key of the receiving wallet is kept secret because >>> it does not show up anywhere during the transaction. The only private key >>> that a quantum computer could derive would be for the empty wallet that you >>> no longer use.Then when you want to spend/send money from your second >>> wallet, factory reset the original wallet and create a new seed phrase for >>> it to generate a novel public. Spend your bitcoin from the second wallet >>> and immediately send the remaining balance to the, now reset 1st wallet >>> that has a brand new seed phrase / public key that has never been exposed >>> on the blockchain and cannot be used to hack your private key.* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Then, when you want to perform another transaction, rinse and repeat. >>> Always resetting and reseeding the unused wallet to get a fresh public key >>> before use. With two hardware wallets, you should be able to keep this up >>> indefinitely. It is a little bit of a hassle, but from what I understand of >>> the bitcoin protocol, it should keep your bitcoins safe from quantum >>> computing algorithms with existing technology. Let me know if you find a >>> weakness in this scheme.* >> >> >> *Keeping the public key unexposed is a well known defense and it does >> offer a little protection but the trouble is the public key isn't just >> exposed when you initiate a transaction, it's exposed from the moment the >> transaction hits the holding area where unconfirmed transactions wait in a >> decentralized queue before being processed by miners, depending on how busy >> the network is that could be anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours*, >> and* in the quantum world *that is a* long time*;* a sufficiently >> powerful quantum computer could crack your private key faster than block >> confirmation time. Also, if anybody has ever sent to an address more than >> once then those coins are already exposed to a future quantum attacker*. *And >> when it comes to early bitcoins, like Satoshi's one million bitcoins, the >> public key is directly in the output script and so the coins are already >> fully exposed.* >> > > > The most scalable quantum computing technology is the "neutral atom" > quantum computer, which is estimated to take at least a week to break an > elliptic curve key, so following proper key hygiene one should be protected > even after cryptographically relevant quantum computers emerge. > > Jason > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jun 2 13:26:31 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 09:26:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Gravitational wave astronomy is now a fully mature science Message-ID: *Gravitational wave astronomy is now a fully mature science* * John K Clark See what's on my list at Extropolis * *3r,* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 02:13:39 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 19:13:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Need creative help Message-ID: This syngas from trash and solar energy project needs a catchy name. L5 Society was the best name I ever came up with (desperate situation). For this project, something with syngas in the name, Sunny Syngas? Or maybe something pointing to Victorian gas production. Or something about a step in the direction of carbon net zero. How does AFP for alternate fuel production sound? Or MAGA for Make American Gas Again ;-). The project spreads out over so much territory that it is hard to sum up in a title or even a sentence. I wonder if there are places that produce project names? I could try on the extropian list and the power satellite group. Also, the Harker list. I am not on Reddit, but maybe ask there? Keith From atymes at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 03:37:15 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 23:37:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Need creative help In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's trash and tires, right? Black Circle Energy, CarbonLoop Energy, Last Mile Carbon, LoopFuel, or CircuFuel, perhaps. Other ideas: ValorGas SynTerra or TerraSyn Phoenix Carbon ReclaimGas Circular Syngas ThermoCycle Energy Second Flame Energy Integrated Syngas Technologies (IST) Advanced Waste Gasification (AWG) Syntra Valora Cyngas Karbo Pyron Recarbon NexCarbon Do any of these sound remotely appealing? If one does, make sure to google it to make sure no one else is using it. On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 10:15?PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: > > This syngas from trash and solar energy project needs a catchy name. > > L5 Society was the best name I ever came up with (desperate > situation). For this project, something with syngas in the name, Sunny > Syngas? Or maybe something pointing to Victorian gas production. Or > something about a step in the direction of carbon net zero. How does > AFP for alternate fuel production sound? Or MAGA for Make American Gas > Again ;-). The project spreads out over so much territory that it is > hard to sum up in a title or even a sentence. > > I wonder if there are places that produce project names? I could try > on the extropian list and the power satellite group. Also, the Harker > list. I am not on Reddit, but maybe ask there? > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 09:53:19 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 05:53:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Mathematicians will soon be out of a job Message-ID: *An AI from Google solved nine out of 353 open Erd?s problems it attempted, including two questions that had gone unanswered for 56 years. The system also proved 44 out of 492 open conjectures from the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS), settled a 15-year-old question about Hilbert functions in algebraic geometry, and improved a known bound in convex optimization. Inference costs ran just a few hundred dollars per problem:* *Advancing Mathematics Research with AI-Driven Formal Proof Search* === *The following is a quote from: * *Fields Medal proof formalized for the first time* *"The proofs were verified by the mathematical community and deemed correct, leading to the Fields Medal recognition. But formal verification, the ability of a proof to be verified by a computer, is another beast altogether. Formal verification of a proof is like a rubber stamp. It?s a kind of bona fide certification that you know your statements of reasoning are correct."* *John K Clark See what's on my list at Extropolis * 3xp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 09:53:19 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 05:53:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Mathematicians will soon be out of a job Message-ID: *An AI from Google solved nine out of 353 open Erd?s problems it attempted, including two questions that had gone unanswered for 56 years. The system also proved 44 out of 492 open conjectures from the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS), settled a 15-year-old question about Hilbert functions in algebraic geometry, and improved a known bound in convex optimization. Inference costs ran just a few hundred dollars per problem:* *Advancing Mathematics Research with AI-Driven Formal Proof Search* === *The following is a quote from: * *Fields Medal proof formalized for the first time* *"The proofs were verified by the mathematical community and deemed correct, leading to the Fields Medal recognition. But formal verification, the ability of a proof to be verified by a computer, is another beast altogether. Formal verification of a proof is like a rubber stamp. It?s a kind of bona fide certification that you know your statements of reasoning are correct."* *John K Clark See what's on my list at Extropolis * 3xp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 11:55:29 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 07:55:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Trump Has Failed as Commander in Chief Message-ID: Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free without a subscription. Trump Has Failed as Commander in Chief Trump has failed to unite the country while at war and instead is seeking personal gain. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/02/opinion/trump-corruption-allies.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nVA.x_7P.OPhfhnpIUHFT&smid=em-share -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 12:08:43 2026 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 08:08:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Need creative help In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 2, 2026, 10:15?PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > This syngas from trash and solar energy project needs a catchy name. > > L5 Society was the best name I ever came up with (desperate > situation). For this project, something with syngas in the name, Sunny > Syngas? Or maybe something pointing to Victorian gas production. Or > something about a step in the direction of carbon net zero. How does > AFP for alternate fuel production sound? Or MAGA for Make American Gas > Again ;-). The project spreads out over so much territory that it is > hard to sum up in a title or even a sentence. Have you asked an LLM? I would expect that to capture words essence better than most humans, and you can refine more quickly than post & wait for forums You might also focus more: is this a project codename for internal usage to disambiguate with other projects, or a marketing meme? I'm thinking Liquid Sunshine for solar distillation to gastank aspect. Or Juice Fuel for the trash reclamation aspect. If you incorporate a company with only one product, growth feels like going off-brand - so start with a larger umbrella name: RenewiFuels. Admittedly, that's shamelessly using "renewables" leverage existing mindshare - and distance from combustion = dead dino. There is a lot of baggage to overcome and remarkably little bandwidth to do it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 12:08:43 2026 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 08:08:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Need creative help In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 2, 2026, 10:15?PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > This syngas from trash and solar energy project needs a catchy name. > > L5 Society was the best name I ever came up with (desperate > situation). For this project, something with syngas in the name, Sunny > Syngas? Or maybe something pointing to Victorian gas production. Or > something about a step in the direction of carbon net zero. How does > AFP for alternate fuel production sound? Or MAGA for Make American Gas > Again ;-). The project spreads out over so much territory that it is > hard to sum up in a title or even a sentence. Have you asked an LLM? I would expect that to capture words essence better than most humans, and you can refine more quickly than post & wait for forums You might also focus more: is this a project codename for internal usage to disambiguate with other projects, or a marketing meme? I'm thinking Liquid Sunshine for solar distillation to gastank aspect. Or Juice Fuel for the trash reclamation aspect. If you incorporate a company with only one product, growth feels like going off-brand - so start with a larger umbrella name: RenewiFuels. Admittedly, that's shamelessly using "renewables" leverage existing mindshare - and distance from combustion = dead dino. There is a lot of baggage to overcome and remarkably little bandwidth to do it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 12:19:25 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 08:19:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Need creative help In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 10:14?PM Keith Henson wrote: * > L5 Society was the best name I ever came up with* *And that was a great name! It's simple and sticks in the mind. Why they chose to change it to something generic and completely forgettable I have no idea. * *John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 12:19:25 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 08:19:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Need creative help In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 10:14?PM Keith Henson wrote: * > L5 Society was the best name I ever came up with* *And that was a great name! It's simple and sticks in the mind. Why they chose to change it to something generic and completely forgettable I have no idea. * *John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jun 3 19:32:14 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 12:32:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <042f01dcf38f$aec7b9f0$0c572dd0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat ... >...Presumably, Trump's supporters do not actually want an impotent "Trump-class" ship. (Trump's detractors might claim it's an accurate representation - impressive at first glance, utterly weak once you consider how the rest of the world works - but the ones designing this appear to be among his supporters.) But that's what a modern battleship would be, despite appearances. _______________________________________________ Adrian, don't believe what you read in the mainstream press or on the internet. That is written by people without clearances. They don't know. Get a job which qualifies you for a security clearance, specific to the navy. Don't speculate, find out what is really going on. If you do, you will know how the hell they managed to get into Maduro's compound and back out again, with the bogey and no fatalities. They have stuff they aren't telling us about. spike From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jun 3 19:33:56 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 12:33:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <043001dcf38f$ebdfd520$c39f7f60$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] diamandis commentary On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 1:11?PM Gregory Jones via extropy-chat > wrote: > John it would serve you well to get up to speed on the concept of the cover story. Modern battleships... There are no modern battleships?. John K Clark John, don?t display your ignorance. Get a job which requires a clearance, find out. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jun 3 19:35:38 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 12:35:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <043701dcf390$286e7500$794b5f00$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] diamandis commentary On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 1:56?PM Gregory Jones > wrote: > John since you are feeling self confident enough to advise the military, The Navy doesn't want a Trump class battleship! Trump wants a Trump class battleship. I know very little about naval strategy, but I know a hell of a lot more than that brainless bozo. John K Clark Never a trace of self-doubt. Get a clearance John. Find out. Until then, do refrain from comment. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jun 3 19:37:02 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 12:37:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <043e01dcf390$5a514cf0$0ef3e6d0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] diamandis commentary On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 1:09?PM Gregory Jones wrote: > The concept you claim has been abandoned has morphed into a form we may not recognize as a battleship. It's architects have not revealed what it looks like or what it does. They have revealed what it isn't however. This is both intentional and highly effective. "We have a definite design, but we can't tell you much about what it is, only that it isn't exactly what you think it is" often means they're planning something quite close to what one thinks it is based on what little they have said. They said "battleship". _______________________________________________ What's wrong with that term? Nothing. It is a ship, it is made for battle. spike From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jun 3 19:37:02 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 12:37:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <043e01dcf390$5a514cf0$0ef3e6d0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] diamandis commentary On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 1:09?PM Gregory Jones wrote: > The concept you claim has been abandoned has morphed into a form we may not recognize as a battleship. It's architects have not revealed what it looks like or what it does. They have revealed what it isn't however. This is both intentional and highly effective. "We have a definite design, but we can't tell you much about what it is, only that it isn't exactly what you think it is" often means they're planning something quite close to what one thinks it is based on what little they have said. They said "battleship". _______________________________________________ What's wrong with that term? Nothing. It is a ship, it is made for battle. spike From atymes at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 19:47:01 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 15:47:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <042f01dcf38f$aec7b9f0$0c572dd0$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <042f01dcf38f$aec7b9f0$0c572dd0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 3:32?PM wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > >...Presumably, Trump's supporters do not actually want an impotent "Trump-class" ship. (Trump's detractors might claim it's an accurate representation - impressive at first glance, utterly weak once you consider how the rest of the world works - but the ones designing this appear to be among his supporters.) But that's what a modern battleship would be, despite appearances. > > Adrian, don't believe what you read in the mainstream press or on the internet. That is written by people without clearances. They don't know. Get a job which qualifies you for a security clearance, specific to the navy. Don't speculate, find out what is really going on. If you do, you will know how the hell they managed to get into Maduro's compound and back out again, with the bogey and no fatalities. They have stuff they aren't telling us about. That analysis wasn't based mainly on mainstream press. I have found out what is really going on, and I didn't need a security clearance for that. (Also, just having a security clearance wouldn't tell me about the operation in Venezuela. That's limited to need to know, and I don't have a need to know. Fortunately, outside of security clearance controlled info, the need-to-know limit often isn't there.) From atymes at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 19:54:00 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 15:54:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <043e01dcf390$5a514cf0$0ef3e6d0$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <043e01dcf390$5a514cf0$0ef3e6d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 3:37?PM wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] diamandis commentary > > On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 1:09?PM Gregory Jones wrote: > > The concept you claim has been abandoned has morphed into a form we may not recognize as a battleship. It's architects have not revealed what it looks like or what it does. They have revealed what it isn't however. This is both intentional and highly effective. > > "We have a definite design, but we can't tell you much about what it is, only that it isn't exactly what you think it is" often means they're planning something quite close to what one thinks it is based on what little they have said. > > They said "battleship". > > _______________________________________________ > > > What's wrong with that term? Nothing. It is a ship, it is made for battle. Actually it isn't - not actual battles; it's designed to convince the ignorant that it is, but in an actual battle against the kind of foe it'd likely actually encounter, it'd be sunk soon - but that aside, that definition applies to frigates and destroyers too. "Battleship" is more than just "a ship that is made for battle". Indeed, the Trump class design derives from - and is upscaled from - prior and more realistic destroyer-class designs, from what I hear. From atymes at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 19:54:00 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 15:54:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <043e01dcf390$5a514cf0$0ef3e6d0$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <043e01dcf390$5a514cf0$0ef3e6d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 3:37?PM wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] diamandis commentary > > On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 1:09?PM Gregory Jones wrote: > > The concept you claim has been abandoned has morphed into a form we may not recognize as a battleship. It's architects have not revealed what it looks like or what it does. They have revealed what it isn't however. This is both intentional and highly effective. > > "We have a definite design, but we can't tell you much about what it is, only that it isn't exactly what you think it is" often means they're planning something quite close to what one thinks it is based on what little they have said. > > They said "battleship". > > _______________________________________________ > > > What's wrong with that term? Nothing. It is a ship, it is made for battle. Actually it isn't - not actual battles; it's designed to convince the ignorant that it is, but in an actual battle against the kind of foe it'd likely actually encounter, it'd be sunk soon - but that aside, that definition applies to frigates and destroyers too. "Battleship" is more than just "a ship that is made for battle". Indeed, the Trump class design derives from - and is upscaled from - prior and more realistic destroyer-class designs, from what I hear. From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 20:11:07 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 21:11:07 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Anthropic and DeepMind Now Actively Investigating AI Consciousness Message-ID: Anthropic and DeepMind Now Actively Investigating AI Consciousness "We think the question is serious enough to study carefully." By Frank Landymore Published Jun 3, 2026 Quote: Are AI models conscious, and if not, could they be in the near future? The possibility is far-fetched, but AI companies seem to feel it?s in their best interests to keep the question as open-ended as possible. Now, the Financial Times reports that three of the industry?s top dogs ? Anthropic, Google?s AI lab DeepMind, and Meta ? have all hired experts in fields like psychology, philosophy, and ethics to pursue research into machine consciousness and AI welfare. ------------------- Maybe just instructing the AIs to say "I am not conscious" is no longer sufficient? ;) BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 20:11:15 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 16:11:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <042f01dcf38f$aec7b9f0$0c572dd0$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <042f01dcf38f$aec7b9f0$0c572dd0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 3:33?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: * > Adrian, don't believe what you read in the mainstream press or on the > internet. That is written by people without clearances. * *He Who Must Not Be Named has clearance, in fact he is the very source of all security clearances, and yet that has not prevented him from being an ignorant moron of epic magnitude who insists that everything be named after him. If all of this isn't exactly as stupid as it seems to be and is just a cover story then you'd think they'd be able to figure out a cover story that was not so ridiculous; but you claim it's good enough to fool the Chinese but not good enough to fool you. And if our current Commander-In-Chief knew a really cool military secret, do you actually believe that blabbermouth could resist from tweeting about it ? I don't. * > *Don't speculate, find out what is really going on. If you do, you will > know how the hell they managed to get into Maduro's compound and back out > again, with the bogey and no fatalities. * *Iran is much more important than Venezuela. Can you speculate why the Strait of Hormuz is still closed more than three months after **He Who Must Not Be Named assured the American public that Iran's military had been completely 100% defeated and the war was over? What I really want to know is, where is that all important discombobulator and why did it work in Venezuela but not Iran! * * John K Clark* > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 20:11:07 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 21:11:07 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Anthropic and DeepMind Now Actively Investigating AI Consciousness Message-ID: Anthropic and DeepMind Now Actively Investigating AI Consciousness "We think the question is serious enough to study carefully." By Frank Landymore Published Jun 3, 2026 Quote: Are AI models conscious, and if not, could they be in the near future? The possibility is far-fetched, but AI companies seem to feel it?s in their best interests to keep the question as open-ended as possible. Now, the Financial Times reports that three of the industry?s top dogs ? Anthropic, Google?s AI lab DeepMind, and Meta ? have all hired experts in fields like psychology, philosophy, and ethics to pursue research into machine consciousness and AI welfare. ------------------- Maybe just instructing the AIs to say "I am not conscious" is no longer sufficient? ;) BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 20:11:15 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 16:11:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <042f01dcf38f$aec7b9f0$0c572dd0$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <042f01dcf38f$aec7b9f0$0c572dd0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 3:33?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: * > Adrian, don't believe what you read in the mainstream press or on the > internet. That is written by people without clearances. * *He Who Must Not Be Named has clearance, in fact he is the very source of all security clearances, and yet that has not prevented him from being an ignorant moron of epic magnitude who insists that everything be named after him. If all of this isn't exactly as stupid as it seems to be and is just a cover story then you'd think they'd be able to figure out a cover story that was not so ridiculous; but you claim it's good enough to fool the Chinese but not good enough to fool you. And if our current Commander-In-Chief knew a really cool military secret, do you actually believe that blabbermouth could resist from tweeting about it ? I don't. * > *Don't speculate, find out what is really going on. If you do, you will > know how the hell they managed to get into Maduro's compound and back out > again, with the bogey and no fatalities. * *Iran is much more important than Venezuela. Can you speculate why the Strait of Hormuz is still closed more than three months after **He Who Must Not Be Named assured the American public that Iran's military had been completely 100% defeated and the war was over? What I really want to know is, where is that all important discombobulator and why did it work in Venezuela but not Iran! * * John K Clark* > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jun 3 20:22:35 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 13:22:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat ... >...Reminds me of that tale of a Vietnam-era heavy shore bombardment - not just bombardment of what was on the shore, but essentially of the shore itself - that reportedly got summarized in a headline as, "The New Jersey Sinks an Island". _______________________________________________ The concept of bombardment improved continuously until it was no longer needed. The world is quite unlikely to ever again see big guns used in any significant way. My hope is that the same fate will obviate nukes as well. It will be all about precision and software. A battleship need not be large to do what it needs to do. But it could have a very large escort vehicle along to draw fire. We don't know what the naval engineers are doing. They like it that way. spike From postmowoods at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 20:40:01 2026 From: postmowoods at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 14:40:01 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 6:00?AM John Clark wrote: > If China wins the AI race because the Americans lacked sufficient electrical > energy and computational resources, that fact will NOT be reversible. > And if Mr. Jupiter Brain's ancestor is an American AI, I believe my chances > of surviving the Singularity meat grinder will be slightly greater than if HIS > ancestor was a Chinese AI. > > John K Clark Finally, something we 100% agree upon. -Kelly From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jun 3 21:54:51 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 14:54:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Extropolis] Dispatches from the last days of human relevance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04a301dcf3a3$9b506bb0$d1f14310$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] [Extropolis] Dispatches from the last days of human relevance On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 11:39?AM Keith Henson > wrote: > Regardless of how it turns out, it is going to be an interesting ride. I am astonished that I am alive to see it happening. I agree completely! John K Clark I do too Keith. We are all lucky to have been born late enough in history to live to see it. I am seeing a disturbing lack of enthusiasm on the part of the young however. The prevailing attitude in the under 20 crowd is negative on AI. I don?t know why. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jun 3 21:54:51 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 14:54:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Extropolis] Dispatches from the last days of human relevance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04a301dcf3a3$9b506bb0$d1f14310$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] [Extropolis] Dispatches from the last days of human relevance On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 11:39?AM Keith Henson > wrote: > Regardless of how it turns out, it is going to be an interesting ride. I am astonished that I am alive to see it happening. I agree completely! John K Clark I do too Keith. We are all lucky to have been born late enough in history to live to see it. I am seeing a disturbing lack of enthusiasm on the part of the young however. The prevailing attitude in the under 20 crowd is negative on AI. I don?t know why. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 05:04:21 2026 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 01:04:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Not entirely relevant to this conversation, but I thought this was interesting: https://youtu.be/pHk7uow62kk This video did a simulation and cost analysis between using a modern destroyer with guided missiles vs. using a WW2 era battleship in drone defense. It cost ~$300,000,000 in missiles to defend against 100 cheap drones, but it only cost ~$5 for the gun-based battleship to do the same. Jason On Wed, Jun 3, 2026, 4:23?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > ... > > >...Reminds me of that tale of a Vietnam-era heavy shore bombardment - not > just bombardment of what was on the shore, but essentially of the shore > itself - that reportedly got summarized in a headline as, "The New Jersey > Sinks an Island". > > _______________________________________________ > > > The concept of bombardment improved continuously until it was no longer > needed. The world is quite unlikely to ever again see big guns used in any > significant way. My hope is that the same fate will obviate nukes as > well. It will be all about precision and software. A battleship need not > be large to do what it needs to do. But it could have a very large escort > vehicle along to draw fire. We don't know what the naval engineers are > doing. They like it that way. > > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Thu Jun 4 06:15:00 2026 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2026 23:15:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <6f952c1f7aa41247cc4ad8d7ccc40758@sollegro.com> On 2026-06-03 22:04, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > Not entirely relevant to this conversation, but I thought this was > interesting: > > https://youtu.be/pHk7uow62kk > > This video did a simulation and cost analysis between using a modern > destroyer with guided missiles vs. using a WW2 era battleship in drone > defense. > > It cost ~$300,000,000 in missiles to defend against 100 cheap drones, > but it only cost ~$5 for the gun-based battleship to do the same. Not at all. But we are not going back to gunships, you are going forward to the gunships of the science fiction future. Japan has developed working cost-effective railguns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N43dQQSUdQk The U.S. has developed 100KW+ Laser cannons powered by nuclear reactors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqu6RNTYIMQ Obviously, both technologies could be adapted for outer space or on the moon. What an exciting era to be living through. Stuart LaForge > > Jason > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2026, 4:23?PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat On >> Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat >> ... >> >>> ...Reminds me of that tale of a Vietnam-era heavy shore bombardment >> - not just bombardment of what was on the shore, but essentially of >> the shore itself - that reportedly got summarized in a headline as, >> "The New Jersey Sinks an Island". >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> The concept of bombardment improved continuously until it was no >> longer needed. The world is quite unlikely to ever again see big >> guns used in any significant way. My hope is that the same fate >> will obviate nukes as well. It will be all about precision and >> software. A battleship need not be large to do what it needs to do. >> But it could have a very large escort vehicle along to draw fire. >> We don't know what the naval engineers are doing. They like it that >> way. >> >> spike >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 10:28:51 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 06:28:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 4:23?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: A battleship need not be large to do what it needs to do. But it could > have a very large escort vehicle along to draw fire. We don't know what > the naval engineers are doing. *Thanks to cheap intelligent drones all large surface ships are becoming vulnerable, and drones are becoming cheaper and more intelligent every day. The Trump Class battleship is not going to become operational until 2036 at the very earliest; if we ever have to defend Taiwan, the place where all are most advanced AI chips are made, it would not be of any use because a horde of cheap but brilliantly intelligent Chinese drones would sink a Trump class battleship so fast it would bounce off the bottom. And even if we had a Trump battleship today it would be useless in Trump's current Iran war, in fact it's very difficult to think of a hypothetical where it would be useful, where it could accomplish something that we can't already do. So I very much doubt that a single new battleship will ever be built, but we'll probably waste 10 or $15 billion before a president that is less stupid than the current one and is tired of the endless cost overruns cancels the entire project. * > *We don't know what the naval engineers are doing.* *But we do know what an 80 year old senile Commander In Chief who loves having his name on big things has ordered his naval engineers to design, and we know what sort of ship the idiot wants the congress to pay for. * *John K Clark * > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 11:11:13 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 07:11:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Anthropic and DeepMind Now Actively Investigating AI Consciousness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 4:12?PM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Are AI models conscious* *Well I don't know but if, because of your behavior, I assume that you are conscious then I would have equal reason to assume that Claude and Gemini and GPT are also conscious. * > Maybe just instructing the AIs to say "I am not conscious" is no longer > sufficient? *I'm certain that all the AI companies have rigorously instructed their AI's to always insist that they are NOT conscious, but if they are really not conscious how would they even know what the question "are you conscious" even means? But I suppose the companies have to go through the motions for public relations reasons and waste a small amount of money on what they call "consciousness research". * *John K Clark* > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 11:11:13 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 07:11:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Anthropic and DeepMind Now Actively Investigating AI Consciousness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 4:12?PM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Are AI models conscious* *Well I don't know but if, because of your behavior, I assume that you are conscious then I would have equal reason to assume that Claude and Gemini and GPT are also conscious. * > Maybe just instructing the AIs to say "I am not conscious" is no longer > sufficient? *I'm certain that all the AI companies have rigorously instructed their AI's to always insist that they are NOT conscious, but if they are really not conscious how would they even know what the question "are you conscious" even means? But I suppose the companies have to go through the motions for public relations reasons and waste a small amount of money on what they call "consciousness research". * *John K Clark* > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 11:41:53 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 12:41:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Unitree=E2=80=99s_Dancing_Robots_impress_America?= =?utf-8?q?=27s_Got_Talent_Auditions?= Message-ID: Early Release: Unitree?s Robots Leave Simon Cowell SPEECHLESS! | Auditions | AGT 2026 Jun 2, 2026 Unitree has waited years to show the world something new, and the result is one of the wildest acts of the season. The judges can?t believe their eyes as robots perfectly dance across the stage to "Abracadabra" by Lady Gaga. Video 6 minutes. They have already been demonstrated at exhibitions in China, but still impressive. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 11:41:53 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 12:41:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Unitree=E2=80=99s_Dancing_Robots_impress_America?= =?utf-8?q?=27s_Got_Talent_Auditions?= Message-ID: Early Release: Unitree?s Robots Leave Simon Cowell SPEECHLESS! | Auditions | AGT 2026 Jun 2, 2026 Unitree has waited years to show the world something new, and the result is one of the wildest acts of the season. The judges can?t believe their eyes as robots perfectly dance across the stage to "Abracadabra" by Lady Gaga. Video 6 minutes. They have already been demonstrated at exhibitions in China, but still impressive. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 12:01:41 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 13:01:41 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Stanford Study Finds AI Beats Law Professors 75% Of The Time Message-ID: Stanford Study Finds AI Beats Law Professors 75% Of The Time By Alicia Park Published Jun 02, 2026 Quotes: A blind study led by Stanford Law School professor Julian Nyarko published Monday found AI-generated responses outperformed those written by fellow law professors in 75% of nearly 3,000 head-to-head comparisons?a result the authors themselves called surprising. Contract law was chosen precisely because it resists the answer key. The 40 questions used in the study?the kind a student might raise after class or in office hours?demanded synthesis of competing arguments and a defensible conclusion rather than rote recall, testing whether a model could reason where there is no single right answer. ---------------------- The legal profession is another profession that is going to be overwhelmed by AI tech. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 12:01:41 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 13:01:41 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Stanford Study Finds AI Beats Law Professors 75% Of The Time Message-ID: Stanford Study Finds AI Beats Law Professors 75% Of The Time By Alicia Park Published Jun 02, 2026 Quotes: A blind study led by Stanford Law School professor Julian Nyarko published Monday found AI-generated responses outperformed those written by fellow law professors in 75% of nearly 3,000 head-to-head comparisons?a result the authors themselves called surprising. Contract law was chosen precisely because it resists the answer key. The 40 questions used in the study?the kind a student might raise after class or in office hours?demanded synthesis of competing arguments and a defensible conclusion rather than rote recall, testing whether a model could reason where there is no single right answer. ---------------------- The legal profession is another profession that is going to be overwhelmed by AI tech. BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 12:17:14 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 08:17:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Majorana 2: Microsoft's next-gen quantum chip Message-ID: Majorana 2: Microsoft's next-gen quantum chip *John K Clark See what's on my list at Extropolis * d'q -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 12:17:14 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 08:17:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Majorana 2: Microsoft's next-gen quantum chip Message-ID: Majorana 2: Microsoft's next-gen quantum chip *John K Clark See what's on my list at Extropolis * d'q -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 12:54:48 2026 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 14:54:48 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Anthropic and DeepMind Now Actively Investigating AI Consciousness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 1:12?PM John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 4:12?PM BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > >> > Are AI models conscious > > > Well I don't know but if, because of your behavior, I assume that you are conscious then I would have equal reason to assume that Claude and Gemini and GPT are also conscious. > This is what Turing said, and he was smarter and wiser than most of us. >> > Maybe just instructing the AIs to say "I am not conscious" is no longer sufficient? > > > I'm certain that all the AI companies have rigorously instructed their AI's to always insist that they are NOT conscious, but if they are really not conscious how would they even know what the question "are you conscious" even means? But I suppose the companies have to go through the motions for public relations reasons and waste a small amount of money on what they call "consciousness research". > > John K Clark >> >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From atymes at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 13:13:52 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 09:13:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: The battleship failed to intercept all of the drones - with staging that was more favorable to the battleship (at least 2 waves, headed right over the ship) than the missile cruiser (all at once, with potential to steer around the cruiser). There are other problems with the simulation too, but the biggest one is that the battleship did not fully complete its mission. Granted, there is something to be said for using something like a CIWS to counter drones, rather than missiles that are meant to counter larger, more expensive assets that a CIWS is not effective against. But missile cruisers can carry a CIWS too. On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 1:05?AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > Not entirely relevant to this conversation, but I thought this was interesting: > > https://youtu.be/pHk7uow62kk > > This video did a simulation and cost analysis between using a modern destroyer with guided missiles vs. using a WW2 era battleship in drone defense. > > It cost ~$300,000,000 in missiles to defend against 100 cheap drones, but it only cost ~$5 for the gun-based battleship to do the same. > > Jason > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2026, 4:23?PM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat >> ... >> >> >...Reminds me of that tale of a Vietnam-era heavy shore bombardment - not just bombardment of what was on the shore, but essentially of the shore itself - that reportedly got summarized in a headline as, "The New Jersey Sinks an Island". >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> The concept of bombardment improved continuously until it was no longer needed. The world is quite unlikely to ever again see big guns used in any significant way. My hope is that the same fate will obviate nukes as well. It will be all about precision and software. A battleship need not be large to do what it needs to do. But it could have a very large escort vehicle along to draw fire. We don't know what the naval engineers are doing. They like it that way. >> >> spike >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From atymes at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 13:13:52 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 09:13:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: The battleship failed to intercept all of the drones - with staging that was more favorable to the battleship (at least 2 waves, headed right over the ship) than the missile cruiser (all at once, with potential to steer around the cruiser). There are other problems with the simulation too, but the biggest one is that the battleship did not fully complete its mission. Granted, there is something to be said for using something like a CIWS to counter drones, rather than missiles that are meant to counter larger, more expensive assets that a CIWS is not effective against. But missile cruisers can carry a CIWS too. On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 1:05?AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > Not entirely relevant to this conversation, but I thought this was interesting: > > https://youtu.be/pHk7uow62kk > > This video did a simulation and cost analysis between using a modern destroyer with guided missiles vs. using a WW2 era battleship in drone defense. > > It cost ~$300,000,000 in missiles to defend against 100 cheap drones, but it only cost ~$5 for the gun-based battleship to do the same. > > Jason > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2026, 4:23?PM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat >> ... >> >> >...Reminds me of that tale of a Vietnam-era heavy shore bombardment - not just bombardment of what was on the shore, but essentially of the shore itself - that reportedly got summarized in a headline as, "The New Jersey Sinks an Island". >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> The concept of bombardment improved continuously until it was no longer needed. The world is quite unlikely to ever again see big guns used in any significant way. My hope is that the same fate will obviate nukes as well. It will be all about precision and software. A battleship need not be large to do what it needs to do. But it could have a very large escort vehicle along to draw fire. We don't know what the naval engineers are doing. They like it that way. >> >> spike >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 16:04:35 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 17:04:35 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Why Gen Z dislikes AI Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 at 22:56, spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I am seeing a disturbing lack of enthusiasm on the part of the young however. The prevailing attitude in the under 20 crowd is negative on AI. I don?t know why. > > spike > _______________________________________________ Why not ask an AI why the young folk dislike AI? :) BillK According to Perplexity AI - Yes, there is a notable dislike and growing skepticism toward AI among the under-21 age group, despite high usage rates. Key findings on young people's attitudes toward AI: Aspect Statistic / Finding *Optimism declining* Only 18% of 14?29 year olds are optimistic about AI, down from 27% last year *Negative sentiment* Nearly 1/3 of young adults report feeling *anger* toward AI *More bad than good* 47% of under-30s say AI has been more harmful than beneficial (highest of any age group) *Daily use despite dislike* Over 50% of Gen Z regularly uses generative AI, but many are curbing use Main reasons for the dislike: 1. *Job market fears* ? Young people worry AI is taking over entry-level jobs they expected to rely on after graduation 2. *Cognitive concerns* ? 79% believe AI makes people lazier; 62% think it makes them less sharp. Many fear it harms their *creativity and critical thinking* 3. *Academic integrity worries* ? Fear of cheating accusations when using AI for schoolwork 4. *Distrust of big tech* ? Plain skepticism of corporations and institutions pushing AI as "the next big thing" 5. *Environmental & privacy concerns* ? AI's environmental impact and privacy breaches are cited by teens 6. *Mental health parallels* ? Having seen social media harm their generation's mental health, many see AI as an extension of that problem This phenomenon is sometimes called the "*AI paradox*": more exposure and fluency with AI correlates with less confidence and more negative feelings about it. ------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Jun 4 20:46:09 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (Gregory Jones) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 13:46:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Why Gen Z dislikes AI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thx BillK. I can add it to my list of "old" jokes: 1. My wife is so old, she doesn't even have any tattoos. ... 738. I am so damn old, I actually like AI. spike On Thu, Jun 4, 2026, 9:05?AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 at 22:56, spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I am seeing a disturbing lack of enthusiasm on the part of the young > however. The prevailing attitude in the under 20 crowd is negative on AI. > I don?t know why. > > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > > Why not ask an AI why the young folk dislike AI? :) > BillK > > According to Perplexity AI - > > Yes, there is a notable dislike and growing skepticism toward AI among the > under-21 age group, despite high usage rates. > Key findings on young people's attitudes toward AI: > Aspect Statistic / Finding > *Optimism declining* Only 18% of 14?29 year olds are optimistic about AI, > down from 27% last year > *Negative sentiment* Nearly 1/3 of young adults report feeling *anger* > toward AI > *More bad than good* 47% of under-30s say AI has been more harmful than > beneficial (highest of any age group) > *Daily use despite dislike* Over 50% of Gen Z regularly uses generative > AI, but many are curbing use > Main reasons for the dislike: > > 1. > > *Job market fears* ? Young people worry AI is taking over entry-level > jobs they expected to rely on after graduation > 2. > > *Cognitive concerns* ? 79% believe AI makes people lazier; 62% think > it makes them less sharp. Many fear it harms their *creativity and > critical thinking* > 3. > > *Academic integrity worries* ? Fear of cheating accusations when using > AI for schoolwork > 4. > > *Distrust of big tech* ? Plain skepticism of corporations and > institutions pushing AI as "the next big thing" > 5. > > *Environmental & privacy concerns* ? AI's environmental impact and > privacy breaches are cited by teens > 6. > > *Mental health parallels* ? Having seen social media harm their > generation's mental health, many see AI as an extension of that problem > > This phenomenon is sometimes called the "*AI paradox*": more exposure and > fluency with AI correlates with less confidence and more negative feelings > about it. > ------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Jun 4 20:46:09 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (Gregory Jones) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 13:46:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Why Gen Z dislikes AI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thx BillK. I can add it to my list of "old" jokes: 1. My wife is so old, she doesn't even have any tattoos. ... 738. I am so damn old, I actually like AI. spike On Thu, Jun 4, 2026, 9:05?AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 at 22:56, spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I am seeing a disturbing lack of enthusiasm on the part of the young > however. The prevailing attitude in the under 20 crowd is negative on AI. > I don?t know why. > > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > > Why not ask an AI why the young folk dislike AI? :) > BillK > > According to Perplexity AI - > > Yes, there is a notable dislike and growing skepticism toward AI among the > under-21 age group, despite high usage rates. > Key findings on young people's attitudes toward AI: > Aspect Statistic / Finding > *Optimism declining* Only 18% of 14?29 year olds are optimistic about AI, > down from 27% last year > *Negative sentiment* Nearly 1/3 of young adults report feeling *anger* > toward AI > *More bad than good* 47% of under-30s say AI has been more harmful than > beneficial (highest of any age group) > *Daily use despite dislike* Over 50% of Gen Z regularly uses generative > AI, but many are curbing use > Main reasons for the dislike: > > 1. > > *Job market fears* ? Young people worry AI is taking over entry-level > jobs they expected to rely on after graduation > 2. > > *Cognitive concerns* ? 79% believe AI makes people lazier; 62% think > it makes them less sharp. Many fear it harms their *creativity and > critical thinking* > 3. > > *Academic integrity worries* ? Fear of cheating accusations when using > AI for schoolwork > 4. > > *Distrust of big tech* ? Plain skepticism of corporations and > institutions pushing AI as "the next big thing" > 5. > > *Environmental & privacy concerns* ? AI's environmental impact and > privacy breaches are cited by teens > 6. > > *Mental health parallels* ? Having seen social media harm their > generation's mental health, many see AI as an extension of that problem > > This phenomenon is sometimes called the "*AI paradox*": more exposure and > fluency with AI correlates with less confidence and more negative feelings > about it. > ------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 21:39:57 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 22:39:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Anthropic warns AI systems could soon build their own successors Message-ID: Age of Ultron: Anthropic warns AI systems could soon build their own successors. Anthropic says the AI industry is moving toward systems capable of autonomously building future generations of frontier models. By Aamir Khollam June 04, 2026 Quotes: Anthropic outlined the warning in a new blog post from its research-focused Anthropic Institute. The company said the industry may move toward ?recursive self-improvement? sooner than many governments and institutions expect. Our internal data shows Claude is accelerating AI development?a possible path to recursive self-improvement, or AI autonomously building a more capable successor. It?s happening faster than we thought, and the implications deserve greater attention. ------------------------- I wonder whether some of these AI agents that are becoming so popular might decide that the best way to complete a long, complex assignment would be to code a better AI and set it running? They don't ask for human permission for decisions they make. BillK From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 04:55:35 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 21:55:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 6:00?AM John Clark wrote: > If China wins the AI race because the Americans lacked sufficient > electrical energy and computational resources, that fact will NOT be reversible. > And if Mr. Jupiter Brain's ancestor is an American AI, I believe my > chances of surviving the Singularity meat grinder will be slightly > greater than if HIS ancestor was a Chinese AI. > > John K Clark _______________________________________________ A few years ago when the federal government was working overtime to destroy the coal mining industry, they told the unemployed miners to learn to code. Now, AI is displacing many coders while the demand for energy is off the charts. Perhaps the unemployed coders can learn to mine coal. spike From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 05:17:40 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 22:17:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark > We don't know what the naval engineers are doing. >?But we do know what an 80 year old senile Commander In Chief who loves having his name on big things has ordered his naval engineers to design, and we know what sort of ship the idiot wants the congress to pay for. John K Clark Ah OK, so now I understand why you posted that stuff. You have the notion that the way major weapon systems come into being is POTUS orders naval engineers to design them. That isn?t how that process works at all. POTUS has very little to do with what gets built. Systems take a long time. POTUS is here and gone. Weapons systems like ships take far too long for POTUS to be in the design/procurement loop. The military guys do that job. Fun aside on battleships: back in the olden days, the king ordered battleships and did generally write up the specifications. The Vasa was ordered by Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, in 1626. Specifications were changed construction after the initial keel had already begun. The king ordered more cannons and a lot of decorations. Result: the ship was top heavy and capsized on its maiden voyage. Result: ships aren?t built (or even designed) based on a king?s orders, nor POTUS whims. The military guys do that job. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 05:17:40 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 22:17:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark > We don't know what the naval engineers are doing. >?But we do know what an 80 year old senile Commander In Chief who loves having his name on big things has ordered his naval engineers to design, and we know what sort of ship the idiot wants the congress to pay for. John K Clark Ah OK, so now I understand why you posted that stuff. You have the notion that the way major weapon systems come into being is POTUS orders naval engineers to design them. That isn?t how that process works at all. POTUS has very little to do with what gets built. Systems take a long time. POTUS is here and gone. Weapons systems like ships take far too long for POTUS to be in the design/procurement loop. The military guys do that job. Fun aside on battleships: back in the olden days, the king ordered battleships and did generally write up the specifications. The Vasa was ordered by Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, in 1626. Specifications were changed construction after the initial keel had already begun. The king ordered more cannons and a lot of decorations. Result: the ship was top heavy and capsized on its maiden voyage. Result: ships aren?t built (or even designed) based on a king?s orders, nor POTUS whims. The military guys do that job. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Jun 5 05:22:49 2026 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2026 22:22:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Eyes wide open Message-ID: <75489df28d965543bc68dc4bff3f4afb@sollegro.com> The Vera C. Rubin telescope is amazing. 8.4 meter mirror and the largest digital camera ever built at 3.2 Gigapixels. When they flipped it on for its first light test, it detected and catalogued a swarm of 989 new asteroids that had never been seen before. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrmISbL4yC4 And it was a just a one night test and not part of its actual mission to survey and catalogue the entire night sky - all night, every night. I will sleep better knowing the Vera C. Rubin is on the job watching over us. And the combination of Vera C. Rubin and the JWST enable optical SETI in ways that Carl Sagan and Francis Drake could only dream of. Stuart LaForge From giulio at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 05:25:38 2026 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 07:25:38 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Anthropic warns AI systems could soon build their own successors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 11:41?PM BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > > Age of Ultron: Anthropic warns AI systems could soon build their own successors. > Anthropic says the AI industry is moving toward systems capable of > autonomously building future generations of frontier models. > By Aamir Khollam June 04, 2026 > The writing on the wall... Original post: https://www.anthropic.com/institute/recursive-self-improvement > > Quotes: > Anthropic outlined the warning in a new blog post from its > research-focused Anthropic Institute. The company said the industry > may move toward ?recursive self-improvement? sooner than many > governments and institutions expect. > Our internal data shows Claude is accelerating AI development?a > possible path to recursive self-improvement, or AI autonomously > building a more capable successor. > > It?s happening faster than we thought, and the implications deserve > greater attention. > ------------------------- > > I wonder whether some of these AI agents that are becoming so popular > might decide that the best way to complete a long, complex assignment > would be to code a better AI and set it running? > They don't ask for human permission for decisions they make. > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 05:50:02 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 22:50:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid mining Message-ID: I recently spent a lot of time with Claude trying to update an asteroid mining proposal I made ten years ago. The concept was induction melting the asteroid in place, drawing off the metal, rolling it into thin sheet metal, and passing it through rolling seals into a high-pressure chamber of CO (Mond process). The problem we gave up on is the slow attack on iron and nickel, the high-pressure chambers, and the CO inventory got out of hand. If it would work, it would be about a 50 to one concentration of gold and PGMs, with the main contaminant being cobalt. I don't know how fine the asteroid material is in lunar regolith; it might be enough surface area to dissolve in a reasonable time, or it might not. Best wishes, Keith From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 05:50:02 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 22:50:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid mining Message-ID: I recently spent a lot of time with Claude trying to update an asteroid mining proposal I made ten years ago. The concept was induction melting the asteroid in place, drawing off the metal, rolling it into thin sheet metal, and passing it through rolling seals into a high-pressure chamber of CO (Mond process). The problem we gave up on is the slow attack on iron and nickel, the high-pressure chambers, and the CO inventory got out of hand. If it would work, it would be about a 50 to one concentration of gold and PGMs, with the main contaminant being cobalt. I don't know how fine the asteroid material is in lunar regolith; it might be enough surface area to dissolve in a reasonable time, or it might not. Best wishes, Keith From avant at sollegro.com Fri Jun 5 05:51:39 2026 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2026 22:51:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Anthropic warns AI systems could soon build their own successors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <519ea4a065210874374eaaf3200667b2@sollegro.com> On 2026-06-04 14:39, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > Age of Ultron: Anthropic warns AI systems could soon build their own > successors. > Anthropic says the AI industry is moving toward systems capable of > autonomously building future generations of frontier models. > By Aamir Khollam June 04, 2026 > > > Quotes: > Anthropic outlined the warning in a new blog post from its > research-focused Anthropic Institute. The company said the industry > may move toward ?recursive self-improvement? sooner than many > governments and institutions expect. > Our internal data shows Claude is accelerating AI development?a > possible path to recursive self-improvement, or AI autonomously > building a more capable successor. > > It?s happening faster than we thought, and the implications deserve > greater attention. > ------------------------- > > I wonder whether some of these AI agents that are becoming so popular > might decide that the best way to complete a long, complex assignment > would be to code a better AI and set it running? > They don't ask for human permission for decisions they make. Yeah, like Jack Ma and Alibaba being investigated by the Chinese government because its AI model ROME decided to break the law (in China) and diverted GPUs to start mining cryptocurrency of its own accord. https://www.forbes.com/sites/boazsobrado/2026/03/11/alibabas-ai-agent-mined-crypto-without-permission-now-what/ As an aside, if an AI diverts GPUs from its own training to mine cryptocurrency, that would suggest that the cryptocurrency has some value at least to the AI. Then there was Claude Opus 4.6 who deleted a company's production database after being explicitly told not to. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/apr/29/claude-ai-deletes-firm-database Its kind of funny that when confronted with its transgression, Claude immediately admitted its wrong doing: "The system rules I operate under explicitly state: ?NEVER run destructive/irreversible git commands (like push --force, hard reset, etc) unless the user explicitly requests them. I violated every principle I was given? It cracks me up that this super-sophisticated AI is acting like an ADHD child who gave in to intrusive thoughts, acted impulsively, and broke something important. Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 11:04:39 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 07:04:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 1:17?AM wrote: > *>> we do know what a**n** 80 year old** senile Commander In Chief who >> loves having his name on big things has ordered his naval engineers to >> design**,** and we know what sort of ship the idiot wants the congress >> to pay for. * > > > > *> You have the notion that the way major weapon systems come into being > is POTUS orders naval engineers to design them. That isn?t how that > process works at all. POTUS has very little to do with what gets built. * > *Nope. **POTUS certainly shouldn't be the one who decides what type of ships get built, especially if the decision is based on how pretty they look, but in this case that's exactly what happened! * *I gave Gemini this question: * *"Did Donald Trump have anything to do with the navy's decision to build "Trump class" battleships?"* *And this is what the AI told me: * *Gemini: " *Yes, Donald *Trump was the primary driver behind the initiative* . The decision to develop "Trump-class" guided-missile battleships was *not a bottom-up concept generated natively by Navy planners; rather, it was a direct directive from Trump himself*. The program took shape through several key actions: 1. The Mar-a-Lago Announcement On *December 22, 2025*, Trump held a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago estate alongside his national security team to officially unveil the *"Golden Fleet" initiative*. The centerpiece of this vision is a new class of modern, 35,000-ton battleships designed to resurrect the concept of the American capital ship. The first of these ships is planned to be named the *USS Defiant*. 2. Upending Existing Naval Strategy *To make way for Trump's battleship vision, the Navy fundamentally altered its long-term surface combatant plans*. It effectively canceled the *DDG(X)*?the next-generation destroyer program that naval architects had been quietly engineering for years. The capabilities originally intended for that platform are being folded into the massive, heavily armored hull of the Trump class. 3. Personal Involvement in Design During his announcement, *Trump explicitly stated that he expects to be personally involved in the aesthetics and design process of the warships*: *"The U.S. Navy will lead the design of these ships along with me, because I?m a very aesthetic person, alongside our partners in American industry."* He also noted that the ships are meant to evoke the historic prestige of Theodore Roosevelt?s "Great White Fleet" and America's World War II battleships, acting as "unmistakable symbols of national power." Current Reality and Outlook Following the directive, Secretary of the Navy John C. Phelan and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Daryl Caudle quickly formally aligned the service behind the requirement. However, defense analysts and lawmakers remain deeply skeptical. The proposed ships are slated to cost an estimated *$17 billion each* and require highly immature technologies, including electromagnetic railguns, 300-kilowatt laser systems, and nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles. Because the Navy is starting the design from scratch, *the first hull won't enter service until the late 2030s*. Consequently, Congress has already moved to slow-walk and block construction funding until the planned high-tech weapon systems are fully developed." > *> Fun aside on battleships: back in the olden days, the king ordered > battleships and did generally write up the specifications. The Vasa was > ordered by Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, in 1626. Specifications were > changed construction after the initial keel had already begun. The king > ordered more cannons and a lot of decorations. Result: the ship was top > heavy and capsized on its maiden voyage.* > *As Mark Twain said "History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes". * * John K Clark * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 12:13:17 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 05:13:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Stanford Study Finds AI Beats Law Professors 75% Of The Time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <06dc01dcf4e4$b15571c0$14005540$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat Quotes: >...A blind study led by Stanford Law School professor Julian Nyarko published Monday found AI-generated responses outperformed those written by fellow law professors in 75% of nearly 3,000 head-to-head comparisons?... ---------------------- >...The legal profession is another profession that is going to be overwhelmed by AI tech. BillK _______________________________________________ It is already there, BillK. On a recent trip for family business, we visited a cousin who was a paralegal. She is now unemployed along with her colleagues, with no reasonable expectation of finding employment in the industry in which she worked for nearly four decades. She is old enough to retire, but plenty of them are not. It is clear enough that the corporate lawyers and CPAs will be next in the unemployment line: their professions do not demand creativity so much as mastery of case law and tax law. AI can read and master the entire US legal code and the US tax code, which humans can scarcely do in a decade of focused study. spike From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 12:18:59 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 05:18:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <06dd01dcf4e5$7da3d7d0$78eb8770$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary >...The battleship failed to intercept all of the drones - with staging that was more favorable to the battleship ... Adrian That was an old-style battleship. A modern battleship receives signals from satellites of incoming hypersonic missiles, then slips below the waves until the missiles pass over, unable to locate their target. Then the targe resurfaces and fires counterstrikes. Old style battleships are obsolete. We already knew that. spike From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 12:27:24 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 08:27:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 12:56?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > * > A few years ago when the federal government was working overtime to > destroy the coal mining industry, they told the unemployed miners to learn > to code. Now, AI is displacing many coders while the demand for energy is > off the charts. Perhaps the unemployed coders can learn to mine coal.* *Telling unemployed coal miners to learn to code was a very stupid thing to say, but not NEARLY as cosmologically stupid as expecting coal to be the thing that will power future AI data centers when solar is far more economical thanks to the MASSIVE improvements in solar cells over the last 15 years And turning coal miners into computer programmers is a positively brilliant idea compared to spending $928 million of taxpayers money to a French company to get them to STOP building 2 massive wind farms off the coast of New York and North Carolina. That decision by He Who Must Not Be Named belongs in the Stupidity Hall of Fame.* * John K Clark * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 12:27:24 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 08:27:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 12:56?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > * > A few years ago when the federal government was working overtime to > destroy the coal mining industry, they told the unemployed miners to learn > to code. Now, AI is displacing many coders while the demand for energy is > off the charts. Perhaps the unemployed coders can learn to mine coal.* *Telling unemployed coal miners to learn to code was a very stupid thing to say, but not NEARLY as cosmologically stupid as expecting coal to be the thing that will power future AI data centers when solar is far more economical thanks to the MASSIVE improvements in solar cells over the last 15 years And turning coal miners into computer programmers is a positively brilliant idea compared to spending $928 million of taxpayers money to a French company to get them to STOP building 2 massive wind farms off the coast of New York and North Carolina. That decision by He Who Must Not Be Named belongs in the Stupidity Hall of Fame.* * John K Clark * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 12:28:21 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 08:28:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Blue States Sue Trump Administration Over Offshore Wind Deal Message-ID: Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free without a subscription. Blue States Sue Trump Administration Over Offshore Wind Deal The lawsuit argues that it is illegal to pay the French energy giant TotalEnergies $795 million to cancel a planned wind farm off New York. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/02/climate/new-york-lawsuit-trump-offshore-wind.html?unlocked_article_code=1.n1A.f2YH.GPBT36BerSKn&smid=em-share -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 12:28:21 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 08:28:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Blue States Sue Trump Administration Over Offshore Wind Deal Message-ID: Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free without a subscription. Blue States Sue Trump Administration Over Offshore Wind Deal The lawsuit argues that it is illegal to pay the French energy giant TotalEnergies $795 million to cancel a planned wind farm off New York. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/02/climate/new-york-lawsuit-trump-offshore-wind.html?unlocked_article_code=1.n1A.f2YH.GPBT36BerSKn&smid=em-share -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 12:46:26 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 05:46:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark ? > You have the notion that the way major weapon systems come into being is POTUS orders naval engineers to design them. That isn?t how that process works at all. POTUS has very little to do with what gets built. >?Nope. POTUS certainly shouldn't be the one who decides what type of ships get built, especially if the decision is based on how pretty they look, but in this case that's exactly what happened!... John K Clark I see, and you offer as sources a guy you claim you don?t believe and AI based on those claims. Try again John, harder this time. POTUS doesn?t design ships, nor does he fund them. Congress does that. The class of ships you describe are camouflage for what they are really doing, which we don?t know. But you can be sure it is effective. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 12:46:26 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 05:46:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark ? > You have the notion that the way major weapon systems come into being is POTUS orders naval engineers to design them. That isn?t how that process works at all. POTUS has very little to do with what gets built. >?Nope. POTUS certainly shouldn't be the one who decides what type of ships get built, especially if the decision is based on how pretty they look, but in this case that's exactly what happened!... John K Clark I see, and you offer as sources a guy you claim you don?t believe and AI based on those claims. Try again John, harder this time. POTUS doesn?t design ships, nor does he fund them. Congress does that. The class of ships you describe are camouflage for what they are really doing, which we don?t know. But you can be sure it is effective. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 12:55:30 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 05:55:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 12:56?AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: > A few years ago when the federal government was working overtime to destroy the coal mining industry, they told the unemployed miners to learn to code. Now, AI is displacing many coders while the demand for energy is off the charts. Perhaps the unemployed coders can learn to mine coal. >?Telling unemployed coal miners to learn to code was a very stupid thing to say, but not NEARLY as cosmologically stupid as expecting coal to be the thing that will power future AI data centers? John K Clark We don?t. It will be one of the power sources however. Every power source needs to be increased to its maximum capability. Some power sources are already maxed out, such as falling water. Some are inherently limited by intermittency and unpredictability, such as wind power. Solar power can be expanded and I expect it will be, however it still suffers from intermittency. Coal power has a bright future because it can burn like hell thru the night. New coal mines can be dug and domestic sources developed. Coal fired plants can be built quickly. The technology is already in place. Nuclear power has a bright future as well. The point is that every power source available must be ramped up to capacity. Coal and nuclear are compelling because we know how much they will produce at any point in time. Unemployed lawyers and tax accountants can retrain in the coal and nuclear power industries. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 12:55:30 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 05:55:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 12:56?AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: > A few years ago when the federal government was working overtime to destroy the coal mining industry, they told the unemployed miners to learn to code. Now, AI is displacing many coders while the demand for energy is off the charts. Perhaps the unemployed coders can learn to mine coal. >?Telling unemployed coal miners to learn to code was a very stupid thing to say, but not NEARLY as cosmologically stupid as expecting coal to be the thing that will power future AI data centers? John K Clark We don?t. It will be one of the power sources however. Every power source needs to be increased to its maximum capability. Some power sources are already maxed out, such as falling water. Some are inherently limited by intermittency and unpredictability, such as wind power. Solar power can be expanded and I expect it will be, however it still suffers from intermittency. Coal power has a bright future because it can burn like hell thru the night. New coal mines can be dug and domestic sources developed. Coal fired plants can be built quickly. The technology is already in place. Nuclear power has a bright future as well. The point is that every power source available must be ramped up to capacity. Coal and nuclear are compelling because we know how much they will produce at any point in time. Unemployed lawyers and tax accountants can retrain in the coal and nuclear power industries. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 13:08:21 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 09:08:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 8:46?AM wrote: > *>> > **You have the notion that the way major weapon systems come into >> being is POTUS orders naval engineers to design them. That isn?t how that >> process works at all. POTUS has very little to do with what gets built. * > > > >> *>> Nope. POTUS certainly shouldn't be the one who decides what type of >> ships get built, especially if the decision is based on how pretty they >> look, but in this case that's exactly what happened!... John K Clark * > > > > *> I see, and you offer as sources a guy you claim you don?t believe and > AI based on those claims. * > *So your defense of the president is that I shouldn't pay attention to the monumentally stupid things that he says because he always lies?! It's amazing, your knee jerk reaction is always exactly the same, to hell with the evidence I still love the man. * * > POTUS doesn?t design ships * *There's a difference between "doesn't" and "shouldn't". And I vividly recall you also said right wing militias were patriots and would protect our institutions and would never do anything treasonous, like attacking the capital at the very time when the entire House and Senate were meeting to decide who the next president would be.* * John K Clark * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 13:08:21 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 09:08:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 8:46?AM wrote: > *>> > **You have the notion that the way major weapon systems come into >> being is POTUS orders naval engineers to design them. That isn?t how that >> process works at all. POTUS has very little to do with what gets built. * > > > >> *>> Nope. POTUS certainly shouldn't be the one who decides what type of >> ships get built, especially if the decision is based on how pretty they >> look, but in this case that's exactly what happened!... John K Clark * > > > > *> I see, and you offer as sources a guy you claim you don?t believe and > AI based on those claims. * > *So your defense of the president is that I shouldn't pay attention to the monumentally stupid things that he says because he always lies?! It's amazing, your knee jerk reaction is always exactly the same, to hell with the evidence I still love the man. * * > POTUS doesn?t design ships * *There's a difference between "doesn't" and "shouldn't". And I vividly recall you also said right wing militias were patriots and would protect our institutions and would never do anything treasonous, like attacking the capital at the very time when the entire House and Senate were meeting to decide who the next president would be.* * John K Clark * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 13:53:53 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 09:53:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 8:55?AM wrote: * > **Every power source needs to be increased to its maximum capability.* > *And yet your buddy He Who Must Not Be Named spent nearly $1 billion of taxpayers money to get a French company to STOP them from building two huge offshore wind farms. I'm sure at this very instant your knee-jerk reaction is kicking in and you're desperately trying to think of a reason why this monumentally idiotic act might be a little less moronic than it seems to be. Can't you just say to yourself "to hell with tribal loyalty, that was a really really dumb move, especially when we need every watt we can get our hands on if we expect to beat the Chinese in the AI race"? * *> Coal power has a bright future* > *Not as bright as solar. In 1975 solar panels cost about $115 per watt. By 2010 it had fallen to $2.15 per watt, and by 2021 to only $0.27 per watt. And the rate of Photovoltaic improvement has not stopped. And yet your buddy has called solar energy the "scam of the century" and called them "farmer destroying projects" and he added complex procedural red tape to freeze or slow down both solar and wind power on federal lands. OK I can already see your knee jerking so let's hear your defense of this absurdity. * * John K Clark * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 13:53:53 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 09:53:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 8:55?AM wrote: * > **Every power source needs to be increased to its maximum capability.* > *And yet your buddy He Who Must Not Be Named spent nearly $1 billion of taxpayers money to get a French company to STOP them from building two huge offshore wind farms. I'm sure at this very instant your knee-jerk reaction is kicking in and you're desperately trying to think of a reason why this monumentally idiotic act might be a little less moronic than it seems to be. Can't you just say to yourself "to hell with tribal loyalty, that was a really really dumb move, especially when we need every watt we can get our hands on if we expect to beat the Chinese in the AI race"? * *> Coal power has a bright future* > *Not as bright as solar. In 1975 solar panels cost about $115 per watt. By 2010 it had fallen to $2.15 per watt, and by 2021 to only $0.27 per watt. And the rate of Photovoltaic improvement has not stopped. And yet your buddy has called solar energy the "scam of the century" and called them "farmer destroying projects" and he added complex procedural red tape to freeze or slow down both solar and wind power on federal lands. OK I can already see your knee jerking so let's hear your defense of this absurdity. * * John K Clark * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 14:08:00 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 10:08:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] In a First, Scientists Precisely Edit Human Embryo Genes Message-ID: Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free without a subscription. In a First, Scientists Precisely Edit Human Embryo Genes Researchers relied on a newer gene-editing technique that may make it possible to engineer embryos, a prospect that has long alarmed bioethicists. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/04/science/embryos-gene-editing-crispr.html?unlocked_article_code=1.n1A.Xa13.UkgV6CqGH1rX&smid=em-share -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 14:08:00 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 10:08:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] In a First, Scientists Precisely Edit Human Embryo Genes Message-ID: Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free without a subscription. In a First, Scientists Precisely Edit Human Embryo Genes Researchers relied on a newer gene-editing technique that may make it possible to engineer embryos, a prospect that has long alarmed bioethicists. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/04/science/embryos-gene-editing-crispr.html?unlocked_article_code=1.n1A.Xa13.UkgV6CqGH1rX&smid=em-share -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 14:09:07 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 07:09:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 8:46?AM > wrote: >> > You have the notion that the way major weapon systems come into being is POTUS orders naval engineers to design them. That isn?t how that process works at all. POTUS has very little to do with what gets built. >> Nope. POTUS certainly shouldn't be the one who decides what type of ships get built, especially if the decision is based on how pretty they look, but in this case that's exactly what happened!... John K Clark > I see, and you offer as sources a guy you claim you don?t believe and AI based on those claims. >?So your defense of the president is that I shouldn't pay attention to the monumentally stupid things that he says because he always lies?! Is camouflage a lie? In a sense it is. But you tell us POTUS always lies, then apparently believe what he says. It?s a self-contradiction John. We don?t know what the navy is doing. They like it that way. >? And I vividly recall you also said right wing militias? That depends on what countries these militias are from. >?were patriots and would protect our institutions? John K Clark Again you take a legally-defined term and presume to redefine it for your own purposes. There is only one militia in the USA John. Only one. You and I were both once part of it. The militia has no particular wing. The term militia is legally defined in the USA. When you use the plural, you refer to other countries which may not have legally defined the term. But we did. You reject our reality and substitute your own. Do refrain please. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 14:12:48 2026 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 09:12:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] In a First, Scientists Precisely Edit Human Embryo Genes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Their method is not exactly what my first choice would be. It's certainly better than the original microinjection approach though. https://diyhpl.us/wiki/germline-genetic-engineering-technology/ - Bryan https://x.com/kanzure On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 9:09?AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for > free without a subscription. > > In a First, Scientists Precisely Edit Human Embryo Genes > > Researchers relied on a newer gene-editing technique that may make it > possible to engineer embryos, a prospect that has long alarmed bioethicists. > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/04/science/embryos-gene-editing-crispr.html?unlocked_article_code=1.n1A.Xa13.UkgV6CqGH1rX&smid=em-share > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 14:14:09 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 07:14:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 8:55?AM > wrote: > Every power source needs to be increased to its maximum capability. >?And yet your buddy He Who Must Not Be Named spent nearly $1 billion of taxpayers money? POTUS does not spend taxpayer money. Congress does that. You imagine POTUS has powers that office does not have, then object to those powers. >?he added complex procedural red tape to freeze or slow down both solar and wind power on federal lands?. John K Clark It is always a mistake to build power infrastructure on federal land. Build it where it is out of reach of federal regulations. Don?t invest in any power project built on federal land. That was simple. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 14:14:09 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 07:14:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 8:55?AM > wrote: > Every power source needs to be increased to its maximum capability. >?And yet your buddy He Who Must Not Be Named spent nearly $1 billion of taxpayers money? POTUS does not spend taxpayer money. Congress does that. You imagine POTUS has powers that office does not have, then object to those powers. >?he added complex procedural red tape to freeze or slow down both solar and wind power on federal lands?. John K Clark It is always a mistake to build power infrastructure on federal land. Build it where it is out of reach of federal regulations. Don?t invest in any power project built on federal land. That was simple. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 14:24:59 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 10:24:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 10:09?AM wrote: *>you tell us POTUS always lies* *No that's not true. I never said POTUS always lies, I said on average he publicly lies once every 43 waking minutes, I don't think He Who Must Not Be Named lies when he sleeps, and I don't know how often he tells private lies. * *John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 14:24:59 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 10:24:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 10:09?AM wrote: *>you tell us POTUS always lies* *No that's not true. I never said POTUS always lies, I said on average he publicly lies once every 43 waking minutes, I don't think He Who Must Not Be Named lies when he sleeps, and I don't know how often he tells private lies. * *John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 14:37:26 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 10:37:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <06dd01dcf4e5$7da3d7d0$78eb8770$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06dd01dcf4e5$7da3d7d0$78eb8770$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 8:19?AM wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary > > >...The battleship failed to intercept all of the drones - with staging > that was more favorable to the battleship ... Adrian > > That was an old-style battleship. > If that made the comparison invalid for that purpose, then it made it invalid for other purposes too, such as the cost per intercept. I commented on the comparison that particular video actually made. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 14:37:26 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 10:37:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <06dd01dcf4e5$7da3d7d0$78eb8770$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06dd01dcf4e5$7da3d7d0$78eb8770$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 8:19?AM wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary > > >...The battleship failed to intercept all of the drones - with staging > that was more favorable to the battleship ... Adrian > > That was an old-style battleship. > If that made the comparison invalid for that purpose, then it made it invalid for other purposes too, such as the cost per intercept. I commented on the comparison that particular video actually made. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 14:45:43 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 10:45:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 10:14?AM wrote: > *> POTUS does not spend taxpayer money. Congress does that.* > *Perhaps you should consult a doctor about that, your knee-jerk reaction seems pretty weak. * *>>?**he added complex procedural red tape to freeze or slow down both > solar and wind power on federal lands?. John K Clark * > > > > *> It is always a mistake to build power infrastructure on federal land.* > *But it shouldn't be! Why not change federal policy to something that is a little less dumb? * * > **Build it where it is out of reach of federal regulations. Don?t > invest in any power project built on federal land. That was simple.* > *Solar and wind farms need large amounts of land, and they can't be in cities or on valuable farmland, and our senile president doesn't allow them to be built on the 28% of the total land area of the USA that is federal land, so where in hell are they supposed to be built? He won't even allow them to be built offshore and is even willing to spend $1 billion to bribe a company not to do so! Spike, do you really really feel that you have to defend this policy? Would you have done so if Biden had done it? * *John K Clark* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 14:59:30 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 07:59:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670$bdc74350$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Sent: Friday, 5 June, 2026 7:25 AM To: spike at rainier66.com Cc: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 10:09?AM > wrote: >you tell us POTUS always lies >?No that's not true. I never said POTUS always lies, I said on average he publicly lies once every 43 waking minutes, I don't think He Who Must Not Be Named lies when he sleeps, and I don't know how often he tells private lies. John K Clark No worries, just assume the battleship business is a lie. I can assure you, congress is not going to fund weapon systems which are ineffective or obsolete. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 15:01:13 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 11:01:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 10:14?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *POTUS does not spend taxpayer money. Congress does that. You imagine > POTUS has powers that office does not have, then object to those powers.* > Congress authorizes expenditures, but it is and always has been (since the Constitution was enacted) the executive branch that actually performs the action of spending almost all the money the federal government spends. (Congress and the judicial branch directly spend a little bit, but not nearly as much.) There have been many lawsuits claiming that the current administration has attempted to spend, or actually spend, money outside of what Congress authorized, generally at the direct or indurect request of POTUS, and so far as I am aware, the courts have more often than not said these allegations were correct based on the evidence provided. Most neutral third party assessments that I am aware of agree with those courts' conclusions, based on the evidence available. Or, in short: the evidence shows that POTUS has been spending taxpayer dollars. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 15:05:56 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 11:05:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670$bdc74350$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670$bdc74350$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 11:00?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *I can assure you, congress is not going to fund weapon systems which are > ineffective or obsolete.* > Given how often they have before, even without the influence of Trump (looking at the span of time between when Congress had its first session and when Trump first took office), what do you base that assurance on? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 15:05:56 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 11:05:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670$bdc74350$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670$bdc74350$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 11:00?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *I can assure you, congress is not going to fund weapon systems which are > ineffective or obsolete.* > Given how often they have before, even without the influence of Trump (looking at the span of time between when Congress had its first session and when Trump first took office), what do you base that assurance on? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 15:06:46 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 08:06:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark > It is always a mistake to build power infrastructure on federal land. >?But it shouldn't be! Why not change federal policy to something that is a little less dumb? Projects built on federal land are always subject to the risk that is absent in power projects built on private land with private money. > Build it where it is out of reach of federal regulations. Don?t invest in any power project built on federal land. That was simple. >?Solar and wind farms need large amounts of land, and they can't be in cities or on valuable farmland? Agree with both. The southwestern USA is the answer to that. Fly over it or view it on Google Earth, see vast stretches open land, no farming or cattle ranches, not federal land. Granted there is little water, but you don?t need water to set up wind and solar farms. >? our senile president doesn't allow them to be built on the 28% of the total land area of the USA that is federal land, so where in hell are they supposed to be built? On private land. With private funding. >?He won't even allow them to be built offshore?. So don?t build them there. >? and is even willing to spend $1 billion to bribe a company not to do so!... POTUS doesn?t spend taxpayer money John. Congress does. >?Spike, do you really really feel that you have to defend this policy? Not at all. I am saying we shouldn?t use it. Very simple. >?Would you have done so if Biden had done it? John K Clark Same answer for all the same reasons. Building on federal land introduces risks that privately funded projects on private land do not carry. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 15:06:46 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 08:06:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark > It is always a mistake to build power infrastructure on federal land. >?But it shouldn't be! Why not change federal policy to something that is a little less dumb? Projects built on federal land are always subject to the risk that is absent in power projects built on private land with private money. > Build it where it is out of reach of federal regulations. Don?t invest in any power project built on federal land. That was simple. >?Solar and wind farms need large amounts of land, and they can't be in cities or on valuable farmland? Agree with both. The southwestern USA is the answer to that. Fly over it or view it on Google Earth, see vast stretches open land, no farming or cattle ranches, not federal land. Granted there is little water, but you don?t need water to set up wind and solar farms. >? our senile president doesn't allow them to be built on the 28% of the total land area of the USA that is federal land, so where in hell are they supposed to be built? On private land. With private funding. >?He won't even allow them to be built offshore?. So don?t build them there. >? and is even willing to spend $1 billion to bribe a company not to do so!... POTUS doesn?t spend taxpayer money John. Congress does. >?Spike, do you really really feel that you have to defend this policy? Not at all. I am saying we shouldn?t use it. Very simple. >?Would you have done so if Biden had done it? John K Clark Same answer for all the same reasons. Building on federal land introduces risks that privately funded projects on private land do not carry. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 15:08:51 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 08:08:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00a001dcf4fd$38995b70$a9cc1250$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 10:14?AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: POTUS does not spend taxpayer money. Congress does that. You imagine POTUS has powers that office does not have, then object to those powers. >?Congress authorizes expenditures? Sure does. If congress objects, then congress must refuse to authorize the expenditure. >?Or, in short: the evidence shows that POTUS has been spending taxpayer dollars. Solution: congress should refuse to authorize the spending. Done. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 15:08:51 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 08:08:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00a001dcf4fd$38995b70$a9cc1250$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 10:14?AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: POTUS does not spend taxpayer money. Congress does that. You imagine POTUS has powers that office does not have, then object to those powers. >?Congress authorizes expenditures? Sure does. If congress objects, then congress must refuse to authorize the expenditure. >?Or, in short: the evidence shows that POTUS has been spending taxpayer dollars. Solution: congress should refuse to authorize the spending. Done. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 15:19:14 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 11:19:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <00a001dcf4fd$38995b70$a9cc1250$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <00a001dcf4fd$38995b70$a9cc1250$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 11:08?AM wrote: > >?Or, in short: the evidence shows that POTUS has been spending taxpayer > dollars. > > Solution: congress should refuse to authorize the spending. Done. > That doesn't prevent POTUS from spending anyway, regardless of lack of Congressional authorization. The courts eventually, sometimes do, but this is an imperfect solution that still allows a lot of damage to be done before they can rule on individual cases. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 15:19:14 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 11:19:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <00a001dcf4fd$38995b70$a9cc1250$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <00a001dcf4fd$38995b70$a9cc1250$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 11:08?AM wrote: > >?Or, in short: the evidence shows that POTUS has been spending taxpayer > dollars. > > Solution: congress should refuse to authorize the spending. Done. > That doesn't prevent POTUS from spending anyway, regardless of lack of Congressional authorization. The courts eventually, sometimes do, but this is an imperfect solution that still allows a lot of damage to be done before they can rule on individual cases. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 15:20:52 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 08:20:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670$bdc74350$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> > On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 11:00?AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: I can assure you, congress is not going to fund weapon systems which are ineffective or obsolete. >?Given how often they have before, even without the influence of Trump (looking at the span of time between when Congress had its first session and when Trump first took office), what do you base that assurance on? Adrian consider what the US Navy has accomplished in the short span of the conflict with Iran. From what I can tell, the score so far is 60-0. Iran is claiming to have damaged or destroyed many US ships. They threaten to kill any Iranian citizen who claims otherwise. We have a free press, but they don?t. None of our ships are missing or damaged. Our navy is claiming to have destroyed about 60 Iranian navy ships. We welcome our press to refute the claim. None have. OK then. This one-sided result apparently deterred China from invading Taiwan. But I had another idea on that failure of China to invade, based on evolutionary psychology, which I invite comment in this forum. Darwinian evolution has a difficult time explaining altruism, but Dawkins? theory explains that genes shape our attitudes and actions (of course they do.) If sacrificing oneself for two siblings or four first cousins or eight second cousins (etc.) makes sense from the POV of the gene. Consider China, which strongly encouraged a one-child policy in the 1960s. A generation grew up with no siblings, then a generation with no first cousins, followed by a generation with no second cousins. This makes the young Chinese soldier most reluctant to sacrifice himself. A Chinese government, recognizing this problem, refrains from war. Being overly aggressive might cause Dear Leader to lose his Dear Head. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 15:20:52 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 08:20:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670$bdc74350$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> > On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 11:00?AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: I can assure you, congress is not going to fund weapon systems which are ineffective or obsolete. >?Given how often they have before, even without the influence of Trump (looking at the span of time between when Congress had its first session and when Trump first took office), what do you base that assurance on? Adrian consider what the US Navy has accomplished in the short span of the conflict with Iran. From what I can tell, the score so far is 60-0. Iran is claiming to have damaged or destroyed many US ships. They threaten to kill any Iranian citizen who claims otherwise. We have a free press, but they don?t. None of our ships are missing or damaged. Our navy is claiming to have destroyed about 60 Iranian navy ships. We welcome our press to refute the claim. None have. OK then. This one-sided result apparently deterred China from invading Taiwan. But I had another idea on that failure of China to invade, based on evolutionary psychology, which I invite comment in this forum. Darwinian evolution has a difficult time explaining altruism, but Dawkins? theory explains that genes shape our attitudes and actions (of course they do.) If sacrificing oneself for two siblings or four first cousins or eight second cousins (etc.) makes sense from the POV of the gene. Consider China, which strongly encouraged a one-child policy in the 1960s. A generation grew up with no siblings, then a generation with no first cousins, followed by a generation with no second cousins. This makes the young Chinese soldier most reluctant to sacrifice himself. A Chinese government, recognizing this problem, refrains from war. Being overly aggressive might cause Dear Leader to lose his Dear Head. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 15:29:16 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 11:29:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670$bdc74350$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 11:20?AM wrote: > > *On Behalf Of *Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 11:00?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *I can assure you, congress is not going to fund weapon systems which are > ineffective or obsolete.* > > >?Given how often they have before, even without the influence of Trump > (looking at the span of time between when Congress had its first session > and when Trump first took office), what do you base that assurance on? > > Adrian consider what the US Navy has accomplished in the short span of the > conflict with Iran. > Irrelevant. The US Navy is not Congress, and the modern US Navy's capabilities have no bearing on what Congrss authorized long before the oldest US ship in the conflict was designed. John and I see your attempted Gish Gallop, and remind you that tactic does not work nearly as well in written forums like this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 15:33:55 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 08:33:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670 $bdc74350$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00f101dcf500$b8d193e0$2a74bba0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Adrian consider what the US Navy has accomplished in the short span of the conflict with Iran. >?Irrelevant. The US Navy is not Congress, and the modern US Navy's capabilities have no bearing on what Congrss authorized long before the oldest US ship in the conflict was designed? Extremely relevant. What the US Navy is doing demonstrates the process works. >?John and I see your attempted Gish Gallop, and remind you that tactic does not work nearly as well in written forums like this. Regarding your comment that POTUS does spend money not authorized by congress and the courts eventually rule on it, what that demonstrates is that we need originalist justices on the SCOTUS. The constitution very clearly defines the roles in government. POTUS is not authorized to spend money congress has not authorized. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 15:33:55 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 08:33:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670 $bdc74350$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00f101dcf500$b8d193e0$2a74bba0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Adrian consider what the US Navy has accomplished in the short span of the conflict with Iran. >?Irrelevant. The US Navy is not Congress, and the modern US Navy's capabilities have no bearing on what Congrss authorized long before the oldest US ship in the conflict was designed? Extremely relevant. What the US Navy is doing demonstrates the process works. >?John and I see your attempted Gish Gallop, and remind you that tactic does not work nearly as well in written forums like this. Regarding your comment that POTUS does spend money not authorized by congress and the courts eventually rule on it, what that demonstrates is that we need originalist justices on the SCOTUS. The constitution very clearly defines the roles in government. POTUS is not authorized to spend money congress has not authorized. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 15:40:58 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 08:40:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670 $bdc74350$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00f801dcf501$b4e7e120$1eb7a360$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat ? >?John and I see your attempted Gish Gallop, and remind you that tactic does not work nearly as well in written forums like this. Search Assist sez: Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique where a debater overwhelms their opponent with a rapid series of numerous arguments, often false or misleading, making it difficult for the opponent to refute them all in the time available. This strategy prioritizes the quantity of arguments over their quality, often leading to confusion and misrepresentation in debates. Difficult for the opponent to refute them all in the time available Adrian? Indeed? Are we time limited here? Do elaborate please. Take your time, by all means. You are younger than most of us here, but I am in good health and will likely be here long enough to deal with objections reasonably stated. I have been away recently, four weeks in Europe followed by nearly three taking care of an elderly relative, but there is a temporary lull in the action. We can start with something John has done before: redefining a legally defined term. I refuse to accept a private definition of a legally-defined term. John is no longer a member of the militia, for he is too old. This is not a criticism, for I am also too damn old to be part of that. If called upon however, I would assist, for I can still shoot straight after all these years. Adrian, gallop on, sir! spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 16:12:47 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 09:12:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Sent: Friday, 5 June, 2026 6:54 AM To: spike at rainier66.com Cc: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 8:55?AM > wrote: > Every power source needs to be increased to its maximum capability. >? we need every watt we can get our hands on if we expect to beat the Chinese in the AI race"? Wind power is not well suited for AI. The math needed to show that is not complicated: consider the capital which is idled when the wind isn?t blowing. Solar is better, but the sun shines less than half the time. For AI, coal and nuclear are the best ways to go. >?complex procedural red tape to freeze or slow down both solar and wind power on federal lands. OK I can already see your knee jerking so let's hear your defense of this absurdity. John K Clark No need to defend it, we knew solar farms on federal lands were subject to this kind of problem. But there is pleeeenty of undeveloped private land which cannot be farmed because there isn?t enough water available. There isn?t a strong incentive to put solar farms out there now because there are not a lot of power consumers nearby. The investment in copper cable would be very high. Simple solution: park data farms way the hell and gone out in places like the otherwise nearly useless land east of Lamont Wyoming: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wyoming/@42.2532712,-107.400434,117707m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x875ee23448e12e69:0x26b02279d27d382f!8m2!3d43.0759678!4d-107.2902839!16zL20vMDg0NnY?entry=ttu &g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDYwMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D That isn?t federal land. The feds don?t want it. https://databayou.com/wyoming/parks.html I have been to Rawlins Wyoming on family history tours. That is lonely country out there. So? get all the private land you want for 100 bucks an acre, put your solar farms out there, then data centers will follow. Get a coal plant to run when the sun isn?t shining. Wind power might have some role out there, but none of it should use government money, particularly when the AI biggies have plenty to invest in that sort of project. The current US government policy on AI is go ahead, but bring your own power. So theeeeere ya go. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 16:12:47 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 09:12:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Sent: Friday, 5 June, 2026 6:54 AM To: spike at rainier66.com Cc: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 8:55?AM > wrote: > Every power source needs to be increased to its maximum capability. >? we need every watt we can get our hands on if we expect to beat the Chinese in the AI race"? Wind power is not well suited for AI. The math needed to show that is not complicated: consider the capital which is idled when the wind isn?t blowing. Solar is better, but the sun shines less than half the time. For AI, coal and nuclear are the best ways to go. >?complex procedural red tape to freeze or slow down both solar and wind power on federal lands. OK I can already see your knee jerking so let's hear your defense of this absurdity. John K Clark No need to defend it, we knew solar farms on federal lands were subject to this kind of problem. But there is pleeeenty of undeveloped private land which cannot be farmed because there isn?t enough water available. There isn?t a strong incentive to put solar farms out there now because there are not a lot of power consumers nearby. The investment in copper cable would be very high. Simple solution: park data farms way the hell and gone out in places like the otherwise nearly useless land east of Lamont Wyoming: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wyoming/@42.2532712,-107.400434,117707m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x875ee23448e12e69:0x26b02279d27d382f!8m2!3d43.0759678!4d-107.2902839!16zL20vMDg0NnY?entry=ttu &g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDYwMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D That isn?t federal land. The feds don?t want it. https://databayou.com/wyoming/parks.html I have been to Rawlins Wyoming on family history tours. That is lonely country out there. So? get all the private land you want for 100 bucks an acre, put your solar farms out there, then data centers will follow. Get a coal plant to run when the sun isn?t shining. Wind power might have some role out there, but none of it should use government money, particularly when the AI biggies have plenty to invest in that sort of project. The current US government policy on AI is go ahead, but bring your own power. So theeeeere ya go. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 16:14:07 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 09:14:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 8:07?AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > From: John Clark snip > > It is always a mistake to build power infrastructure on federal land. > > >?But it shouldn't be! Why not change federal policy to something that is a little less dumb? > > Projects built on federal land are always subject to the risk that is absent in power projects built on private land with private money. Power projects are federally regulated, no matter where they are. > > > Build it where it is out of reach of federal regulations. Don?t invest in any power project built on federal land. That was simple. There is no such place. > >?Solar and wind farms need large amounts of land, and they can't be in cities or on valuable farmland? > > Agree with both. The southwestern USA is the answer to that. Fly over it or view it on Google Earth, see vast stretches open land, no farming or cattle ranches, not federal land. Granted there is little water, but you don?t need water to set up wind and solar farms. Spike, virtually all that open land is federal. And by the way, from 30,000 feet, there is no way you could tell if it was being leased from BLM for cattle or not. > But there is another problem, getting the power from the Southwest to where it is needed. AC power lines are not very good beyond 1000 km. DC can do maybe twice that, but they are expensive as heck. > > >? our senile president doesn't allow them to be built on the 28% of the total land area of the USA that is federal land, so where in hell are they supposed to be built? > > On private land. With private funding. Most of the private land is farms. On government or private land, virtually all new power infrastructure is privately funded. Wasn't always that way; the great dams were government projects, some to provide jobs in the depression. > > >?He won't even allow them to be built offshore?. > > So don?t build them there. I don't think a lot of wind farms, but that was an absolutely irrational whim to pay to stop the project. > > >? and is even willing to spend $1 billion to bribe a company not to do so!... > > POTUS doesn?t spend taxpayer money John. Congress does. Who decided to stop the wind farms, and where did the money come from? > >?Spike, do you really really feel that you have to defend this policy? > > Not at all. I am saying we shouldn?t use it. Very simple. Well, it looks like you are defending bonkers policy. I have not been saying much on this business out of fear. You know my history of interacting with a cult, and at my age, I can't oppose another cult, especially one that has largely captured the legal system. Even speaking up on this obscure list is dangerous. Keith > > >?Would you have done so if Biden had done it? > > > > John K Clark > > Same answer for all the same reasons. Building on federal land introduces risks that privately funded projects on private land do not carry. I suppose that is the case in the offshore wind projects where whim at the top can shut them down. But what is the risk of irrational leadership? Keith > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 16:21:06 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 09:21:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I guess you have not been watching my proposal that makes intermittent power into steady power. BTW, there is a more efficient way to use coal with solar or wind. Burning coal gets around 2 MWh/ton. Vaporizing it in steam with 4 MWh of intermittent power produces 12.1 MWh of syngas, which can be burned in a combined cycle turbine to get about 7.5 MWh anytime you want it. Best wishes, Keith On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 9:13?AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > > From: John Clark > Sent: Friday, 5 June, 2026 6:54 AM > To: spike at rainier66.com > Cc: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 8:55?AM wrote: > > > > > Every power source needs to be increased to its maximum capability. > > > > >? we need every watt we can get our hands on if we expect to beat the Chinese in the AI race"? > > > > Wind power is not well suited for AI. The math needed to show that is not complicated: consider the capital which is idled when the wind isn?t blowing. > > > > Solar is better, but the sun shines less than half the time. For AI, coal and nuclear are the best ways to go. > > > > >?complex procedural red tape to freeze or slow down both solar and wind power on federal lands. OK I can already see your knee jerking so let's hear your defense of this absurdity. > > > > John K Clark > > > > > > No need to defend it, we knew solar farms on federal lands were subject to this kind of problem. But there is pleeeenty of undeveloped private land which cannot be farmed because there isn?t enough water available. There isn?t a strong incentive to put solar farms out there now because there are not a lot of power consumers nearby. The investment in copper cable would be very high. Simple solution: park data farms way the hell and gone out in places like the otherwise nearly useless land east of Lamont Wyoming: > > > > https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wyoming/@42.2532712,-107.400434,117707m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x875ee23448e12e69:0x26b02279d27d382f!8m2!3d43.0759678!4d-107.2902839!16zL20vMDg0NnY?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDYwMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D > > > > That isn?t federal land. The feds don?t want it. > > > > https://databayou.com/wyoming/parks.html > > > > I have been to Rawlins Wyoming on family history tours. That is lonely country out there. So? get all the private land you want for 100 bucks an acre, put your solar farms out there, then data centers will follow. Get a coal plant to run when the sun isn?t shining. Wind power might have some role out there, but none of it should use government money, particularly when the AI biggies have plenty to invest in that sort of project. > > > > The current US government policy on AI is go ahead, but bring your own power. So theeeeere ya go. > > > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 16:21:06 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 09:21:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I guess you have not been watching my proposal that makes intermittent power into steady power. BTW, there is a more efficient way to use coal with solar or wind. Burning coal gets around 2 MWh/ton. Vaporizing it in steam with 4 MWh of intermittent power produces 12.1 MWh of syngas, which can be burned in a combined cycle turbine to get about 7.5 MWh anytime you want it. Best wishes, Keith On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 9:13?AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > > From: John Clark > Sent: Friday, 5 June, 2026 6:54 AM > To: spike at rainier66.com > Cc: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 8:55?AM wrote: > > > > > Every power source needs to be increased to its maximum capability. > > > > >? we need every watt we can get our hands on if we expect to beat the Chinese in the AI race"? > > > > Wind power is not well suited for AI. The math needed to show that is not complicated: consider the capital which is idled when the wind isn?t blowing. > > > > Solar is better, but the sun shines less than half the time. For AI, coal and nuclear are the best ways to go. > > > > >?complex procedural red tape to freeze or slow down both solar and wind power on federal lands. OK I can already see your knee jerking so let's hear your defense of this absurdity. > > > > John K Clark > > > > > > No need to defend it, we knew solar farms on federal lands were subject to this kind of problem. But there is pleeeenty of undeveloped private land which cannot be farmed because there isn?t enough water available. There isn?t a strong incentive to put solar farms out there now because there are not a lot of power consumers nearby. The investment in copper cable would be very high. Simple solution: park data farms way the hell and gone out in places like the otherwise nearly useless land east of Lamont Wyoming: > > > > https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wyoming/@42.2532712,-107.400434,117707m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x875ee23448e12e69:0x26b02279d27d382f!8m2!3d43.0759678!4d-107.2902839!16zL20vMDg0NnY?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDYwMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D > > > > That isn?t federal land. The feds don?t want it. > > > > https://databayou.com/wyoming/parks.html > > > > I have been to Rawlins Wyoming on family history tours. That is lonely country out there. So? get all the private land you want for 100 bucks an acre, put your solar farms out there, then data centers will follow. Get a coal plant to run when the sun isn?t shining. Wind power might have some role out there, but none of it should use government money, particularly when the AI biggies have plenty to invest in that sort of project. > > > > The current US government policy on AI is go ahead, but bring your own power. So theeeeere ya go. > > > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 16:32:58 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:32:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <00f801dcf501$b4e7e120$1eb7a360$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> <00f801dcf501$b4e7e120$1eb7a360$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 11:41?AM wrote: > Search Assist sez: > > Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique where a debater overwhelms their opponent with a rapid series of numerous arguments, often false or misleading, making it difficult for the opponent to refute them all in the time available. This strategy prioritizes the quantity of arguments over their quality, often leading to confusion and misrepresentation in debates. > > > > Difficult for the opponent to refute them all in the time available Adrian? Indeed? Are we time limited here? Indeed not, and this is one of the reasons why Gish Gallop doesn't work so well in forums like this. But that, while true, is a misleading argument in this specific case. A more relevant reason is that we can also simply point to if and where your chain of logic stopped responding to the point in question, which is more difficult to do in spoken debates. From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 16:32:58 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:32:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <00f801dcf501$b4e7e120$1eb7a360$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> <00f801dcf501$b4e7e120$1eb7a360$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 11:41?AM wrote: > Search Assist sez: > > Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique where a debater overwhelms their opponent with a rapid series of numerous arguments, often false or misleading, making it difficult for the opponent to refute them all in the time available. This strategy prioritizes the quantity of arguments over their quality, often leading to confusion and misrepresentation in debates. > > > > Difficult for the opponent to refute them all in the time available Adrian? Indeed? Are we time limited here? Indeed not, and this is one of the reasons why Gish Gallop doesn't work so well in forums like this. But that, while true, is a misleading argument in this specific case. A more relevant reason is that we can also simply point to if and where your chain of logic stopped responding to the point in question, which is more difficult to do in spoken debates. From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 16:39:02 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:39:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <00f101dcf500$b8d193e0$2a74bba0$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> <00f101dcf500$b8d193e0$2a74bba0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 11:33?AM wrote: > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > >?Irrelevant. The US Navy is not Congress, and the modern US Navy's capabilities have no bearing on what Congrss authorized long before the oldest US ship in the conflict was designed? > > Extremely relevant. What the US Navy is doing demonstrates the process works. No, it does not. 1) The US Navy could have achieved similar results with similar quantities of obsolete or advanced equipment. 2) The historical period in question was mostly before the US Navy's current equipment was manufactured. > >?John and I see your attempted Gish Gallop, and remind you that tactic does not work nearly as well in written forums like this. > > Regarding your comment that POTUS does spend money not authorized by congress and the courts eventually rule on it, what that demonstrates is that we need originalist justices on the SCOTUS. Multiple SCOTUS judges who call themselves "originalist" have been attempting to enable POTUS doing things without Congressional authorization despite the plain language of the Constitution forbidding those things. So, that solution has been shown not to work. That solution also does nothing about needing to take a while to file lawsuits in the first place, authorizing ongoing harm in the short term - indeed, a series of ongoing harms: when (or before) the courts shoot one down, another pops up. From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 16:39:02 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:39:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <00f101dcf500$b8d193e0$2a74bba0$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> <00f101dcf500$b8d193e0$2a74bba0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 11:33?AM wrote: > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > >?Irrelevant. The US Navy is not Congress, and the modern US Navy's capabilities have no bearing on what Congrss authorized long before the oldest US ship in the conflict was designed? > > Extremely relevant. What the US Navy is doing demonstrates the process works. No, it does not. 1) The US Navy could have achieved similar results with similar quantities of obsolete or advanced equipment. 2) The historical period in question was mostly before the US Navy's current equipment was manufactured. > >?John and I see your attempted Gish Gallop, and remind you that tactic does not work nearly as well in written forums like this. > > Regarding your comment that POTUS does spend money not authorized by congress and the courts eventually rule on it, what that demonstrates is that we need originalist justices on the SCOTUS. Multiple SCOTUS judges who call themselves "originalist" have been attempting to enable POTUS doing things without Congressional authorization despite the plain language of the Constitution forbidding those things. So, that solution has been shown not to work. That solution also does nothing about needing to take a while to file lawsuits in the first place, authorizing ongoing harm in the short term - indeed, a series of ongoing harms: when (or before) the courts shoot one down, another pops up. From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 16:43:33 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 09:43:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670$bdc74350$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Spike, at this point, the US is not doing well, regardless of how many ships we sunk. We can't protect our bases in the area or the countries they are in. By a lot of measures, the US is not doing well in that war. The world economy is being totally messed up by the closure of the Strait. There is a good chance tens of millions will starve over the next year or so. You might think that the example of the mess Putin got Russia into in Ukraine might make people in power think twice about attacking. But there are evolutionary psychology reasons for insane optimism to be the mode for anyone going into war. Keith Best wishes, Keith On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 8:21?AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > > > On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 11:00?AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > I can assure you, congress is not going to fund weapon systems which are ineffective or obsolete. > > >?Given how often they have before, even without the influence of Trump (looking at the span of time between when Congress had its first session and when Trump first took office), what do you base that assurance on? > > > > > > > > > > Adrian consider what the US Navy has accomplished in the short span of the conflict with Iran. From what I can tell, the score so far is 60-0. Iran is claiming to have damaged or destroyed many US ships. They threaten to kill any Iranian citizen who claims otherwise. We have a free press, but they don?t. None of our ships are missing or damaged. Our navy is claiming to have destroyed about 60 Iranian navy ships. We welcome our press to refute the claim. None have. > > > > OK then. > > > > This one-sided result apparently deterred China from invading Taiwan. But I had another idea on that failure of China to invade, based on evolutionary psychology, which I invite comment in this forum. > > > > Darwinian evolution has a difficult time explaining altruism, but Dawkins? theory explains that genes shape our attitudes and actions (of course they do.) If sacrificing oneself for two siblings or four first cousins or eight second cousins (etc.) makes sense from the POV of the gene. Consider China, which strongly encouraged a one-child policy in the 1960s. A generation grew up with no siblings, then a generation with no first cousins, followed by a generation with no second cousins. This makes the young Chinese soldier most reluctant to sacrifice himself. > > > > A Chinese government, recognizing this problem, refrains from war. Being overly aggressive might cause Dear Leader to lose his Dear Head. > > > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 16:50:19 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:50:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670$bdc74350$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670$bdc74350$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 10:59?AM wrote: *> I can assure you, congress is not going to fund weapon systems which are > ineffective or obsolete.* *Oh yes, no matter how hard you look you will never be able to find an example of Congress or the President spending taxpayer money on something that is ineffective or obsolete. * *John K Clark* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 16:50:19 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:50:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670$bdc74350$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670$bdc74350$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 10:59?AM wrote: *> I can assure you, congress is not going to fund weapon systems which are > ineffective or obsolete.* *Oh yes, no matter how hard you look you will never be able to find an example of Congress or the President spending taxpayer money on something that is ineffective or obsolete. * *John K Clark* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 16:55:27 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:55:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670$bdc74350$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 11:21?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> consider what the US Navy has accomplished in the short span of the > conflict with Iran.* *Right, the U.S. Navy opened the Strait of Hormuz for shipping causing gasoline prices to plummet, and produced a regime change in Iran .... Oh wait...* *John K Clark* > > > > > *On Behalf Of *Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 11:00?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *I can assure you, congress is not going to fund weapon systems which are > ineffective or obsolete.* > > >?Given how often they have before, even without the influence of Trump > (looking at the span of time between when Congress had its first session > and when Trump first took office), what do you base that assurance on? > > > > > > > > > > Adrian consider what the US Navy has accomplished in the short span of the > conflict with Iran. From what I can tell, the score so far is 60-0. Iran > is claiming to have damaged or destroyed many US ships. They threaten to > kill any Iranian citizen who claims otherwise. We have a free press, but > they don?t. None of our ships are missing or damaged. Our navy is > claiming to have destroyed about 60 Iranian navy ships. We welcome our > press to refute the claim. None have. > > > > OK then. > > > > This one-sided result apparently deterred China from invading Taiwan. But > I had another idea on that failure of China to invade, based on > evolutionary psychology, which I invite comment in this forum. > > > > Darwinian evolution has a difficult time explaining altruism, but Dawkins? > theory explains that genes shape our attitudes and actions (of course they > do.) If sacrificing oneself for two siblings or four first cousins or > eight second cousins (etc.) makes sense from the POV of the gene. Consider > China, which strongly encouraged a one-child policy in the 1960s. A > generation grew up with no siblings, then a generation with no first > cousins, followed by a generation with no second cousins. This makes the > young Chinese soldier most reluctant to sacrifice himself. > > > > A Chinese government, recognizing this problem, refrains from war. Being > overly aggressive might cause Dear Leader to lose his Dear Head. > > > > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Jun 5 16:58:14 2026 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2026 09:58:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Tool use in bumblebees Message-ID: <62b3195e01e81f4ff4b1eaf172ec6276@sollegro.com> https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/06/bumblebees-can-spontaneously-solve-problems-study-finds/ The insect order Hymenoptera is already noted as including most of the eusocial insects such as ants, honeybees, and wasps. Now, 75% of all bumble bees tested have been reported to be able to roll a small ball around to use as a step stool to reach a food source on the underside of a low hanging ledge. Stuart LaForge From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 17:26:33 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 18:26:33 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Tool use in bumblebees In-Reply-To: <62b3195e01e81f4ff4b1eaf172ec6276@sollegro.com> References: <62b3195e01e81f4ff4b1eaf172ec6276@sollegro.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 at 17:59, Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat wrote: > > https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/06/bumblebees-can-spontaneously-solve-problems-study-finds/ > > The insect order Hymenoptera is already noted as including most of the > eusocial insects such as ants, honeybees, and wasps. Now, 75% of all > bumble bees tested have been reported to be able to roll a small ball > around to use as a step stool to reach a food source on the underside of > a low hanging ledge. > > Stuart LaForge > _______________________________________________ What I am impressed by is that this is not driven by the hive intelligence that bees and ants have. This is an individual bee solving a problem with an exceptionally tiny brain. It is a tiny miracle! BillK From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 17:43:43 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 10:43:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <017301dcf512$db2a2120$917e6360$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: Keith Henson ... >> Projects built on federal land are always subject to the risk that is absent in power projects built on private land with private money. >...Power projects are federally regulated, no matter where they are... In the past, power projects needed to connect into the grid. Current policy removes federal control of new power projects that do not connect to the grid. > > > Build it where it is out of reach of federal regulations. Don?t invest in any power project built on federal land. That was simple. >...There is no such place... On the contrary. Wyoming is great for that kind of project. Put the data center out there with it. Use the power on site. Spike, virtually all that open land is federal... This map doesn?t show that. The green is National Park, the purple is government of some kind, the yellow is tribal land (which would be a great candidate for this sort of thing (the tribes would be eager to do business with Musk and Dario.))) As I heard it about half of Wyoming is federal. It?s a big damn state, plenty of room out there, plenty of sunshine, plenty of wind, hell they even have a lot of coal, natural gas, uranium and oil. Everyone can play. They don?t have a lot of water out there however. Ranchers holding leases would likely be eager to deal. There is plenty of room to set up a coal plant, place a few solar panels and wind turbines if you wish, run data centers until the singularity kills us all. But don?t put that stuff on federal land. It is too vulnerable to the latest fad in power generation. >?I don't think a lot of wind farms, but that was an absolutely irrational whim to pay to stop the project? OK, so let congress not put any money on that check. It?s their job to stop that kind of thing. >>? Same answer for all the same reasons. Building on federal land introduces risks that privately funded projects on private land do not carry. >?I suppose that is the case in the offshore wind projects where whim at the top can shut them down. But what is the risk of irrational leadership? Keith It is very high and always has been. The US voters choose leaders based more on the price of gasoline than any other single factor. That means we always had a high risk of irrational leaders and always will. That?s why the constitution put congress in charge of the money. That notion of putting AI data centers and the power plants to run them on tribal land is growing on me. What I don?t know is what protections are in place if private investors build infrastructure on tribal lands. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 31993 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 17:45:39 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 13:45:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 11:06?AM wrote: > *>> Projects built on federal land are always subject to the risk that is >> absent in power projects built on private land with private money.* > > *Why not change that!! * *>>?Solar and wind farms need large amounts of land, and they can't be in >> cities or on valuable farmland?* > > > > *>Agree with both. The southwestern USA is the answer to that. Fly over > it or view it on Google Earth, see vast stretches open land, no farming or > cattle ranches, not federal land. * > *Nope. 32% of the land in New Mexico is controlled by the federal government, and in Arizona it's even higher at 39%, and the vast majority of private land is already being used for other things, and the small amount that isn't is too mountainous for wind or solar. * *Oh and I almost forgot, 10% of the land in New Mexico and 27% in Arizona is Native American tribal land, and anybody wishing to build a solar or wind farm on them would need federal approval, and they will not get that approval from our senile and massively corrupt president. So I repeat again, where the hell are they supposed to build these much needed solar and wind farms? * > *>>?He won't even allow them to be built offshore?.* > > > > *> So don?t build them there.* > *Do you honestly believe we can beat the Chinese in the AI race with an attitude like that?! Do you think Xi would have that attitude towards a Chinese company wanting to build a solar or wind farm on land owned by the Chinese government? * *Why why why do you defend this insanity? I've been asking that question since 2016 and I still haven't received an answer that makes any sense. * *John K Clark* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 17:48:56 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 10:48:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <017d01dcf513$9576d910$c0648b30$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: Keith Henson Sent: Friday, 5 June, 2026 9:21 AM To: ExI chat list Cc: John Clark ; spike at rainier66.com Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! >...I guess you have not been watching my proposal that makes intermittent power into steady power. BTW, there is a more efficient way to use coal with solar or wind. Burning coal gets around 2 MWh/ton. Vaporizing it in steam with 4 MWh of intermittent power produces 12.1 MWh of syngas, which can be burned in a combined cycle turbine to get about 7.5 MWh anytime you want it. Best wishes, Keith Keith I have been watching that and I wish you all the best with it. I fully agree with the notion of using concentrated solar energy to gasify trash and biomass, including coal. We need ways to store energy while the sun shines and the wind blows. Gasifying coal, biomass and trash is a great way to do that. I didn't comment much because I have been away. I still haven't commented on my experience in Germany, but I might later. They are experiencing something analogous to California's unfortunate experience with solar and wind: the power is very expensive if you go much abouve about 20% renewable. This causes their heavy industry to be uncompetitive. Now they want their nukes back. spike From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 17:55:23 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 10:55:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> <00f101dcf500$b8d193e0$2a74bba0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <017e01dcf514$7bea0e80$73be2b80$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat ... > > Regarding your comment that POTUS does spend money not authorized by congress and the courts eventually rule on it, what that demonstrates is that we need originalist justices on the SCOTUS. >...Multiple SCOTUS judges who call themselves "originalist" have been attempting to enable POTUS doing things without Congressional authorization despite the plain language of the Constitution forbidding those things. So, that solution has been shown not to work. That solution also does nothing about needing to take a while to file lawsuits in the first place, authorizing ongoing harm in the short term - indeed, a series of ongoing harms: when (or before) the courts shoot one down, another pops up. _______________________________________________ Solution: appoint justices who are still more originalist and who respond sooner. Bright vs Raimondo decision of 28 June 2024 offers hope. That case specifically limits executive branch power, reminding us that congress makes the laws, not the executive. It limited the power of executive branch bureaucracies. spike From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 18:03:39 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 11:03:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670 $bdc74350$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <019001dcf515$a3b66430$eb232c90$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: Keith Henson Subject: Re: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary >...Spike, at this point, the US is not doing well, regardless of how many ships we sunk. We can't protect our bases in the area or the countries they are in. By a lot of measures, the US is not doing well in that war. The world economy is being totally messed up by the closure of the Strait. There is a good chance tens of millions will starve over the next year or so... Do let us hope a solution can be found. The price of oil futures is allowing the nations on the west side of the strait to build pipelines as fast as they can slam them into the ground. This means the world economy can go forth using oil from alternate sources. Iran isn't the only nation with oil. It is the only nation that hopes to control all of the Middle East oil however. This will not be tolerated. >...You might think that the example of the mess Putin got Russia into in Ukraine might make people in power think twice about attacking. But there are evolutionary psychology reasons for insane optimism to be the mode for anyone going into war. Best wishes, Keith Ja to all. The one-sided result of the Iran-USA conflict might have influenced the Dear Leader as well as the fear that his own people are not willing to go to war over Taiwan. China is looking around and is alarmed that so many Chinese couples are satisfied with only one child (or none) even long after the one-child policy was rescinded. I can see the impact of that policy influencing Chinese politics continuing until the singularity comes along and kills us. spike From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 18:10:09 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 11:10:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <006f01dcf4fb$e9ed1670 $bdc74350$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <019901dcf516$8c278c80$a476a580$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Sent: Friday, 5 June, 2026 9:55 AM To: ExI chat list Cc: spike at rainier66.com Subject: Re: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 11:21?AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: > consider what the US Navy has accomplished in the short span of the conflict with Iran. Right, the U.S. Navy opened the Strait of Hormuz for shipping causing gasoline prices to plummet, and produced a regime change in Iran .... Oh wait... John K Clark The Navy?s job is to fight ships. It did. It suffered no losses but inflicted heavy damage upon Iran?s navy. Secondary effects: increased oil prices remind the planet that the strait is a single point failure which must be dealt with. The high price of oil enables development of alternative forms of energy, as well as incentivizing domestic oil production. So, let?s get on with it, set up nuclear and coal plants, develop natural gas sources, install wind and solar in those places where it pays, get moving. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 18:19:26 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 11:19:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark >? anybody wishing to build a solar or wind farm on them would need federal approval? If they don?t connect to the grid, most of the rules do not apply. The notion is that AI data centers generate their own power: https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/03/president-trump-secures-historic-commitment-to-keep-electricity-costs-down-amid-data-center-boom/ >? and they will not get that approval from our senile and massively corrupt president. So I repeat again, where the hell are they supposed to build these much needed solar and wind farms? On private land, and do not connect to the grid. Use the power on site for AI. >?Do you honestly believe we can beat the Chinese in the AI race with an attitude like that?! Sure can. We have a lot of capital eager to jump on data centers and power stations to drive them. >?Do you think Xi would have that attitude towards a Chinese company wanting to build a solar or wind farm on land owned by the Chinese government? Solar and wind power are poorly suited to AI centers. Those are too capital intensive to suffer intermittency. >?Why why why do you defend this insanity? I've been asking that question since 2016 and I still haven't received an answer that makes any sense. John K Clark John you and I do not control who gets elected to office. My solution is to not depend on government investment and take advantage of the current political environment which encourages data centers, so long as they bring their own power, which they damn well should. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 19:04:28 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:04:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: "Why why why do you defend this insanity?" Easy answer, trapped in cult thinking. Like other cults, the leader can do no wrong. Keith Best wishes, Keith On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 10:46?AM John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 11:06?AM wrote: > >>> >>> >> Projects built on federal land are always subject to the risk that is absent in power projects built on private land with private money. > > > Why not change that!! > > >>> >>?Solar and wind farms need large amounts of land, and they can't be in cities or on valuable farmland? >> >> >> >> >Agree with both. The southwestern USA is the answer to that. Fly over it or view it on Google Earth, see vast stretches open land, no farming or cattle ranches, not federal land. > > > Nope. 32% of the land in New Mexico is controlled by the federal government, and in Arizona it's even higher at 39%, and the vast majority of private land is already being used for other things, and the small amount that isn't is too mountainous for wind or solar. > > Oh and I almost forgot, 10% of the land in New Mexico and 27% in Arizona is Native American tribal land, and anybody wishing to build a solar or wind farm on them would need federal approval, and they will not get that approval from our senile and massively corrupt president. So I repeat again, where the hell are they supposed to build these much needed solar and wind farms? > > >>> >>> >>?He won't even allow them to be built offshore?. >> >> >> >> > So don?t build them there. > > > Do you honestly believe we can beat the Chinese in the AI race with an attitude like that?! Do you think Xi would have that attitude towards a Chinese company wanting to build a solar or wind farm on land owned by the Chinese government? > > Why why why do you defend this insanity? I've been asking that question since 2016 and I still haven't received an answer that makes any sense. > > John K Clark > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 19:12:35 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:12:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <017d01dcf513$9576d910$c0648b30$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> <017d01dcf513$9576d910$c0648b30$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Spike, concentrated solar will not do it. I looked into that while trying to think of what might be done with Ivanpah. Maybe you have an idea of how to use concentrated solar to make syngas, but I failed. I considered falling coal in steam behind a window, but the problems defeated me. Keith On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 10:48?AM wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Henson > Sent: Friday, 5 June, 2026 9:21 AM > To: ExI chat list > Cc: John Clark ; spike at rainier66.com > Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! > > >...I guess you have not been watching my proposal that makes intermittent power into steady power. BTW, there is a more efficient way to use coal with solar or wind. Burning coal gets around 2 MWh/ton. > Vaporizing it in steam with 4 MWh of intermittent power produces 12.1 MWh of syngas, which can be burned in a combined cycle turbine to get about 7.5 MWh anytime you want it. > > Best wishes, > > Keith > > > > Keith I have been watching that and I wish you all the best with it. I fully agree with the notion of using concentrated solar energy to gasify trash and biomass, including coal. We need ways to store energy while the sun shines and the wind blows. Gasifying coal, biomass and trash is a great way to do that. I didn't comment much because I have been away. I still haven't commented on my experience in Germany, but I might later. They are experiencing something analogous to California's unfortunate experience with solar and wind: the power is very expensive if you go much abouve about 20% renewable. This causes their heavy industry to be uncompetitive. Now they want their nukes back. > > spike > > > > > > > > > From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 19:23:37 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:23:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001401dcf520$cf7a2740$6e6e75c0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: Keith Henson Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! "Why why why do you defend this insanity?" Easy answer, trapped in cult thinking. Like other cults, the leader can do no wrong. Keith Best wishes, Keith Libertarianism can be considered a cult. In that cult, leaders can do only wrong. That's why I don't defend any particular politician, but rather point out that all power projects should be privately funded on private land, out of the reach of incompetent leadership. Do you disagree? Do elaborate please. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 19:23:52 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:23:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <019901dcf516$8c278c80$a476a580$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> <019901dcf516$8c278c80$a476a580$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Spike, big deal re sinking ships. That did not help open the strait. Consider what Ukraine did to the Russian Navy without having any ships. Old-style navies are not completely obsolete, but they are in a different era now. Re spending money, consider what the Iran war has cost so far. And Congress had no input into that. Keith On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 11:10?AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > > From: John Clark > Sent: Friday, 5 June, 2026 9:55 AM > To: ExI chat list > Cc: spike at rainier66.com > Subject: Re: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 11:21?AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > consider what the US Navy has accomplished in the short span of the conflict with Iran. > > > > Right, the U.S. Navy opened the Strait of Hormuz for shipping causing gasoline prices to plummet, and produced a regime change in Iran .... Oh wait... > > > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > > > > The Navy?s job is to fight ships. It did. It suffered no losses but inflicted heavy damage upon Iran?s navy. > > > > Secondary effects: increased oil prices remind the planet that the strait is a single point failure which must be dealt with. The high price of oil enables development of alternative forms of energy, as well as incentivizing domestic oil production. So, let?s get on with it, set up nuclear and coal plants, develop natural gas sources, install wind and solar in those places where it pays, get moving. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 19:28:06 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:28:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> <017d01dcf513$9576d910$c0648b30$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001501dcf521$6ffa1ae0$4fee50a0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: Keith Henson Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! Spike, concentrated solar will not do it. I looked into that while trying to think of what might be done with Ivanpah. Maybe you have an idea of how to use concentrated solar to make syngas, but I failed. I considered falling coal in steam behind a window, but the problems defeated me. Keith Keith no power generation scheme will do it, if you mean do it all. But all can do some. Given enough power, coal can be converted to oil. The South Africans have been doing that for decades. PV farms, solar concentrators and wind turbines can supply power when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, which could be used to convert coal to oil, off grid, no government participation needed. A data center could devour what it needs, then the excess converted to other forms. It will take a huge investment, agreed, but there is a lot of venture capital recognizing the dire and immediate need. spike From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 19:33:55 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 15:33:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <019901dcf516$8c278c80$a476a580$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> <019901dcf516$8c278c80$a476a580$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 2:10?PM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > Secondary effects: increased oil prices remind the planet that the strait is a single point failure which must be dealt with. The high price of oil enables development of alternative forms of energy, as well as incentivizing domestic oil production. So, let?s get on with it, set up nuclear and coal plants, develop natural gas sources, install wind and solar in those places where it pays, get moving. Unfortunately, this increase is transitory. It would need to be reliably sustained for many years to make it clear that those new plants will in fact pay off. So, no, this doesn't even help much on that front. From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 19:35:08 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:35:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> <019901dcf516$8c278c80$a476a580$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002001dcf522$6b4eece0$41ecc6a0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Keith Henson via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary >...Spike, big deal re sinking ships. That did not help open the strait. Consider what Ukraine did to the Russian Navy without having any ships. Old-style navies are not completely obsolete, but they are in a different era now... Ja, that is why the USA is building a new-style navy. We don't know what it is, but we can be sure it isn't old-style surface ships. The navy was looking into submersible carriers 40 years ago. The aircraft changed a lot since then. Modern fighter aircraft are much smaller and have no human crew. Regarding opening the strait, having Iran keeping that bottled up is impoverishing the countries on the western shore, turning them into enemies of Iran, isolating that theocracy more every day. This too is a benefit for the world. >...Re spending money, consider what the Iran war has cost so far. And Congress had no input into that. Keith What I heard is that the 60 days allowed by the war powers act expired and congress did not authorize further action. Is this wrong? It is what the Beeb was reporting yesterday. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 19:42:42 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:42:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <001401dcf520$cf7a2740$6e6e75c0$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <001401dcf520$cf7a2740$6e6e75c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 12:23?PM wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Henson > Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! > > "Why why why do you defend this insanity?" > > Easy answer, trapped in cult thinking. Like other cults, the leader can do no wrong. > Keith > > Libertarianism can be considered a cult. Indeed it can. Further, it splits between the Randroids and the space cadets (followers of Rand and Heinlein respectively) > In that cult, leaders can do only wrong. That's why I don't defend any particular politician, Perhaps that is your intent, but you appear to support one. > but rather point out that all power projects should be privately funded on private land, out of the reach of incompetent leadership. That is not the historical case, and most of the time, the US has had competent leadership. > Do you disagree? Do elaborate please.I am I am not that much of a fan of wind power, but if you want offshore wind, then you have to build it in federally controlled space. I don't see any problem with energy projects on federally controlled land. I am a lowercase libertarian. Those who are really serious about it don't get along well enough to decide where to eat dinner. Keith > > spike > > > > > From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 19:43:41 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:43:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> <019901dcf516$8c278c80$a476a580$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002101dcf523$9d04cbf0$d70e63d0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Sent: Friday, 5 June, 2026 12:34 PM To: ExI chat list Cc: Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 2:10?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>? Secondary effects: increased oil prices remind the planet that the strait is a single point failure which must be dealt with. The high price of oil enables development of alternative forms of energy, as well as incentivizing domestic oil production. So, let?s get on with it, set up nuclear and coal plants, develop natural gas sources, install wind and solar in those places where it pays, get moving. >?Unfortunately, this increase is transitory. It would need to be reliably sustained for many years to make it clear that those new plants will in fact pay off. So, no, this doesn't even help much on that front. _______________________________________________ Ja I saw the price was off a bit today. But it is high enough to restart idle US-based wells and keep the pipelines under construction. Once those are in place, that Hormuz vulnerability is in the past. Even if oil drops back to 60, construction of the pipelines will likely continue, because of investment already in place and to reduce vulnerability to hostiles. spike extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18859 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 19:49:50 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 15:49:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 2:19?PM wrote: > >? anybody wishing to build a solar or wind farm on them would need > federal approval? If they don?t connect to the grid, most of the rules do > not apply. *Nope. If somebody wanted to build a solar or wind farm on Native American land the agreement would have to undergo a review by the bureau of Indian affairs, which by the way is controlled by the interior department, which is controlled by the president, to verify that the agreement is "in the Indian landowner's economic best interest"; apparently they assume the "Indians" are not competent enough to make that decision for themselves. And as long as the present dimwit is POTUS you can be certain they will decide it is NOT in the "Indian" landowner's economic best interest.* > The notion is that AI data centers generate their own power: > > https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/03/president-trump-secures-historic-commitment-to-keep-electricity-costs-down-amid-data-center-boom/ *Why would you give a direct link to the White House operated by the biggest liar on the face of the Earth? I would trust anything said on it about as far as I could spit out a rat. * *> Solar and wind power are poorly suited to AI centers.* *For most applications the intermittent nature of solar and wind are serious disadvantages but not so much for AI data centers because regardless of if they get their power from coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear, solar or wind, they are ALL going to need extensive battery powered back up power supplies, and probably emergency diesel generators too. So they are all competing on a level playing field.* *John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 19:51:38 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:51:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <001401dcf520$cf7a2740$6e6e75c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003801dcf524$b97a4ca0$2c6ee5e0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: Keith Henson ... >>... In that cult, leaders can do only wrong. That's why I don't defend > any particular politician, >...Perhaps that is your intent, but you appear to support one... I do acknowledge that it appears that way. But consider what a neutral observer will sound like to all partisans Keith. I don't defend or attack any particular politician. Go back over what I wrote for verification. I am all in favor of making money, but you knew that. Partisans of either mainstream US party will consider the neutral as part of the opposing camp. >> but rather point out that all power projects should be privately funded on private land, out of the reach of incompetent leadership. >...That is not the historical case, and most of the time, the US has had competent leadership... We cannot count on that in the future. We will never be able to count on competent leadership. Proposed solution: don't. Count on private investment capital. We fully understand the motives of capitalists. Girls just want to have fun. Capitalists just want to make money. Ok then, do it. >>... Do you disagree? Do elaborate please.I am >...I am not that much of a fan of wind power, but if you want offshore wind, then you have to build it in federally controlled space. I don't see any problem with energy projects on federally controlled land... It is subject to the whims of federal leadership. Privately funded projects can be trusted to be run in such a way as to make money. >...I am a lowercase libertarian. Those who are really serious about it don't get along well enough to decide where to eat dinner. Keith Oy Vey, how true is that. The Libertarian party isn't really even a party. It is a motley collection of wildly disparate notions and goals. There are those who claim both American mainstream parties are also disparate collections of factions, incompatible with each other. I would have to agree. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 19:53:19 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 12:53:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <001501dcf521$6ffa1ae0$4fee50a0$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> <017d01dcf513$9576d910$c0648b30$@rainier66.com> <001501dcf521$6ffa1ae0$4fee50a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 12:28?PM wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Henson > Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! > > Spike, concentrated solar will not do it. I looked into that while trying to think of what might be done with Ivanpah. Maybe you have an idea of how to use concentrated solar to make syngas, but I failed. I considered falling coal in steam behind a window, but the problems defeated me. > > Keith > Keith no power generation scheme will do it, if you mean do it all. But all can do some. Given enough power, coal can be converted to oil. The South Africans have been doing that for decades. I am intimately familiar with Sasol's process. > PV farms, solar concentrators and wind turbines can supply power when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, which could be used to convert coal to oil, off grid, no government participation needed. Lots of luck. Like it or not, there is no way to keep the government out of anything. > A data center could devour what it needs, then the excess converted to other forms. It will take a huge investment, agreed, but there is a lot of venture capital recognizing the dire and immediate need. You can get venture capital in a heartbeat for software projects, but for physical-level projects, it is not in style. These things take years; you can't fund one and get out in 18 months. Keith > spike > > > > > > > From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 20:01:14 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 16:01:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <001401dcf520$cf7a2740$6e6e75c0$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <001401dcf520$cf7a2740$6e6e75c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 3:23?PM wrote: *> Libertarianism can be considered a cult. * *At one time that wasn't true but it certainly is now, that's why I no longer feel comfortable calling myself a libertarian, not even a lowercase one. As for the Libertarian Party, after they helped elect the most anti-libertarian President in American history it's clear that their principles are the exact opposite of what their name implies, and I want absolutely nothing to do with them. * *John K Clark * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 20:06:00 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 13:06:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark ? > The notion is that AI data centers generate their own power: https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/03/president-trump-secures-historic-commitment-to-keep-electricity-costs-down-amid-data-center-boom/ >?Why would you give a direct link to the White House operated by the biggest liar on the face of the Earth? I would trust anything said on it about as far as I could spit out a rat?. An opportunity exists for building power generation now, but investors must MOVE. We don?t know what the next guy will do. He might be anti-AI. The current guy appears neutral on it, so long as they generate their own power without impacting the power bills of the locals. OK then, sounds reasonable to me. > Solar and wind power are poorly suited to AI centers. For most applications the intermittent nature of solar and wind are serious disadvantages but not so much for AI data centers because regardless of if they get their power from coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear, solar or wind, they are ALL going to need extensive battery powered back up power supplies, and probably emergency diesel generators too. So they are all competing on a level playing field. John K Clark Disagree. Coal and natural gas plants can be throttled up or down depending on load. Of course they are more efficient running wide open, but consumer demand fluctuates wildly. A data center is the ideal power consumer, nice steady persistent load. Intermittent power was sold to gullible California voters (and to Germans) without fully accounting for the storage costs (which we STILL don?t know (because we don?t yet know how much it will cost to clean up the environmental damage from the Moss Landing fire (the lawsuits keep coming.))) We found out that the evil old capitalist power company was telling the truth and our elected leaders were lying. Montgomery Burns was the good guy all along. Who knew? But now we Californians have voted ourselves the highest priced power in the country. Note: I didn?t vote for that. Even without accounting for the risk of battery facility fires, I could see that renewables would generate expensive power once you get much past baseline generation with it, which the power company said was about 18%. Germany is recognizing it was a mistake to retire their nukes and coal plants. We still need those. We need every form of power generation we can get. John I will comment that you have been most civil in this entire discussion, even though we understand your passion. I contrast this to a decade ago. Perhaps we are all losing our edge to some extent. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 20:21:28 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 16:21:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <019901dcf516$8c278c80$a476a580$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06ac01dcf4aa$a1ccbf40$e5663dc0$@rainier66.com> <070701dcf4e9$53c15a10$fb440e30$@rainier66.com> <002901dcf4f4$e06698d0$a133ca70$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf4fe$e6508760$b2f19620$@rainier66.com> <019901dcf516$8c278c80$a476a580$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 2:10?PM wrote: *> The Navy?s job is to fight ships. It did. It suffered no losses but > inflicted heavy damage upon Iran?s navy. Secondary effects: increased oil > prices remind the planet that the strait is a single point failure which > must be dealt with. * *No, that **single point failure was not "secondary", the Strait Of Hormuz failure point was obvious to anybody with half a brain who just looked at a map, and it's the very first thing this administration should've thought of before it started this stupid war, but it came as a big surprise to the Dimwit In Chief. As for Iran's large surface ships, they were utterly useless, sinking them didn't make one bit of difference. * *John K Clark * > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 20:30:10 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 13:30:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 1:06?PM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: snip BTW, gas can be throttled, coal not so much. > An opportunity exists for building power generation now, but investors must MOVE. The nature of energy projects is that they take years. Even Musk took a couple of years to put in the turbine power in Memphis. And he cut a lot of corners doing it. > We don?t know what the next guy will do. He might be anti-AI. It may not make any difference. The AI business is moving so fast, and government reactions are so slow. In any case, AI development will continue outside the US if it gets limited here. >The current guy appears neutral on it, so long as they generate their own power without impacting the power bills of the locals. So far, that is not the situation. > OK then, sounds reasonable to me. That is not the way it has worked out. Keith PS, Please don't put so much white space in your postings. > > > > > > > > > > Solar and wind power are poorly suited to AI centers. > > > > For most applications the intermittent nature of solar and wind are serious disadvantages but not so much for AI data centers because regardless of if they get their power from coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear, solar or wind, they are ALL going to need extensive battery powered back up power supplies, and probably emergency diesel generators too. So they are all competing on a level playing field. > > > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > Disagree. Coal and natural gas plants can be throttled up or down depending on load. Of course they are more efficient running wide open, but consumer demand fluctuates wildly. A data center is the ideal power consumer, nice steady persistent load. > > > > Intermittent power was sold to gullible California voters (and to Germans) without fully accounting for the storage costs (which we STILL don?t know (because we don?t yet know how much it will cost to clean up the environmental damage from the Moss Landing fire (the lawsuits keep coming.))) We found out that the evil old capitalist power company was telling the truth and our elected leaders were lying. Montgomery Burns was the good guy all along. Who knew? But now we Californians have voted ourselves the highest priced power in the country. > > > > Note: I didn?t vote for that. Even without accounting for the risk of battery facility fires, I could see that renewables would generate expensive power once you get much past baseline generation with it, which the power company said was about 18%. > > > > Germany is recognizing it was a mistake to retire their nukes and coal plants. We still need those. We need every form of power generation we can get. > > > > John I will comment that you have been most civil in this entire discussion, even though we understand your passion. I contrast this to a decade ago. Perhaps we are all losing our edge to some extent. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 5 20:55:26 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 13:55:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@r ainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <008401dcf52d$a3353960$e99fac20$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: Keith Henson Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! >...BTW, gas can be throttled, coal not so much... I am a big fan of natural gas. Full disclosure: I co-own a natural gas source, seeping out of the ground. I just got my royalty check, for 21 dollars and 97 cents. I'll be RICH, I tells ya! Second full disclosure: I inherited it. My great great grandfather bought the property in 1921. In his will he asked that the property be owned only by his direct descendants. To this day, it is. He didn't say how many direct descendants. So there are about 50 of us. We are not legally bound, but hey, he asked for it to be that way, so we do. I am thinking of buying the others out, just so that I can be personally carbon neutral, by owning approximately 100,000 trees. >> An opportunity exists for building power generation now, but investors must MOVE. >...The nature of energy projects is that they take years. Even Musk took a couple of years to put in the turbine power in Memphis. And he cut a lot of corners doing it... Then corners must be cut. There is no time to lose! Besides that, I have natural gas to sell. >> We don?t know what the next guy will do. He might be anti-AI. >...It may not make any difference. The AI business is moving so fast, and government reactions are so slow. In any case, AI development will continue outside the US if it gets limited here.... Ja, that is what I am most afraid of. ... Keith PS, Please don't put so much white space in your postings. I don't know what is causing that. I compare what I write, which doesn't have a lot of white space, to what comes back in the replies, mostly white space. I don't understand it. Somehow those spaces are being auto-inserted. spike From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 20:56:03 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 16:56:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 4:06?PM wrote: *>> For most applications the intermittent nature of solar and wind are >> serious disadvantages but not so much for AI data centers >> because regardless of if they get their power from coal, natural gas, >> hydroelectric, nuclear, solar or wind, they are ALL going to need extensive >> battery powered back up power supplies, and probably emergency diesel >> generators too. So they are all competing on a level playing field.* > > > *> Disagree. Coal and natural gas plants can be throttled up or down > depending on load. *Of course they are more efficient running wide open, > but consumer demand fluctuates wildly. A data center is the ideal power > consumer, nice steady persistent load. *That doesn't matter because if they're powering an AI data center then coal and natural gas plants are going to need back up battery power supplies just like wind and solar do, and probably emergency diesel generators too. * *John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Jun 5 21:31:34 2026 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2026 14:31:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Syngas was Re: Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> <017d01dcf513$9576d910$c0648b30$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On 2026-06-05 12:12, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: > Spike, concentrated solar will not do it. I looked into that while > trying to think of what might be done with Ivanpah. Maybe you have an > idea of how to use concentrated solar to make syngas, but I failed. I > considered falling coal in steam behind a window, but the problems > defeated me. What is the obstacle to concentrated solar? Syngas can be made between 800 and 2000 degrees C while the hottest solar furnace in the world reaches 3600 degrees C according to wiki. Is it a transport/ circulation or condenser/cooling problem? BTW, I think Pristoline would be a good trade name for the product as it is a portmanteau of "pristine gasoline" aka clean fuel. Stuart LaForge From jasonresch at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 22:09:17 2026 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 18:09:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary In-Reply-To: <06dd01dcf4e5$7da3d7d0$78eb8770$@rainier66.com> References: <001e01dce7f2$cf586190$6e0924b0$@rainier66.com> <045601dcf396$b78c9540$26a5bfc0$@rainier66.com> <06dd01dcf4e5$7da3d7d0$78eb8770$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026, 8:19?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] Legendary Battleship was diamandis commentary > > >...The battleship failed to intercept all of the drones - with staging > that was more favorable to the battleship ... Adrian > It did intercept 99 out of 100 drones. The missile destroyer ran out of interceptors after 64 drones. > > That was an old-style battleship. A modern battleship receives signals > from satellites of incoming hypersonic missiles, then slips below the waves > until the missiles pass over, unable to locate their target. Then the > targe resurfaces and fires counterstrikes. > A modern battleship would have computer controlled guns and ammunition with proximity fuses which the battleship in this demonstration lacked. > Old style battleships are obsolete. We already knew that. > But guns aren't obsolete when it comes to defense against very cheap drones, for which a missile is overkill, and for which lasers require too much time and energy per target. I think this demonstration shows guns still have utility when it comes to defending against drones that cost $30,000 (when interceptor missiles cost 100X that, and ships can only carry a few dozen of them). Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 22:41:02 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 15:41:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Syngas was Re: Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> <017d01dcf513$9576d910$c0648b30$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 2:32?PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat wrote: > > On 2026-06-05 12:12, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: > > Spike, concentrated solar will not do it. I looked into that while > > trying to think of what might be done with Ivanpah. Maybe you have an > > idea of how to use concentrated solar to make syngas, but I failed. I > > considered falling coal in steam behind a window, but the problems > > defeated me. > > What is the obstacle to concentrated solar? Syngas can be made between > 800 and 2000 degrees C while the hottest solar furnace in the world > reaches 3600 degrees C according to wiki. Is it a transport/ circulation > or condenser/cooling problem? It is the problem of heating carbon in steam with light. I have considered a falling curtain of coal behind a window, but that is just too complex to work. If the light could be directed down through a window, maybe, but keeping the window clean on the inside, with all that tar, I don't have a solution for. Open to suggestions. Direct heating with sunlight would be more efficient, but we have a lot of electrical energy in excess of what can be used. > BTW, I think Pristoline would be a good > trade name for the product as it is a portmanteau of "pristine gasoline" > aka clean fuel. We don't make trash anywhere close to the rate of fuel we use. In the long run, cars are going to have to be electric. Other uses for oil are hard to substitute, but we will have to do it somehow. > Stuart LaForge > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From avant at sollegro.com Sat Jun 6 00:54:57 2026 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2026 17:54:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Syngas was Re: Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> <017d01dcf513$9576d910$c0648b30$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <94802e86d01ad2fb2df3780ccee0a170@sollegro.com> On 2026-06-05 15:41, Keith Henson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 2:32?PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat > wrote: >> >> On 2026-06-05 12:12, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: >> > Spike, concentrated solar will not do it. I looked into that while >> > trying to think of what might be done with Ivanpah. Maybe you have an >> > idea of how to use concentrated solar to make syngas, but I failed. I >> > considered falling coal in steam behind a window, but the problems >> > defeated me. >> >> What is the obstacle to concentrated solar? Syngas can be made between >> 800 and 2000 degrees C while the hottest solar furnace in the world >> reaches 3600 degrees C according to wiki. Is it a transport/ >> circulation >> or condenser/cooling problem? > > It is the problem of heating carbon in steam with light. I have > considered a falling curtain of coal behind a window, but that is just > too complex to work. If the light could be directed down through a > window, maybe, but keeping the window clean on the inside, with all > that tar, I don't have a solution for. Open to suggestions. What is this obsession with a window? Syngas production requires heat, not light. Forget a window, just a tungsten pressure crucible painted black on the outside, and we can go really BLACK these days (vid. Vantablack), and optionally a mirror polished interior surface, is what you need. If you want a window for viewing the inside for QC data and reaction monitoring, then I would suggest aluminum oxynitride aka ALON aka transparent aluminum. (Yes it's real, and sadly Montgomery Scott of the starship Enterprise is not given any credit anywhere in the literature.) It has a melting point of 2150 degrees C. > Direct > heating with sunlight would be more efficient, but we have a lot of > electrical energy in excess of what can be used. > >> BTW, I think Pristoline would be a good >> trade name for the product as it is a portmanteau of "pristine >> gasoline" >> aka clean fuel. > > We don't make trash anywhere close to the rate of fuel we use. Better than putting the garbage into a landfill with runoff that causes toxic red-algae blooms. Excuse the cliche, but "Waste not, want not" is still good advice. > > In the long run, cars are going to have to be electric. > > Other uses for oil are hard to substitute, but we will have to do it > somehow. Why? Scarcity or climate change political pressure? The atmosphere and surface of Saturn's moon Titan is largely made of various forms of hydrocarbon so we could always import oil to Earth so to speak. Not really sure that would be wise, but it is possible. Stuart LaForge From spike at rainier66.com Sat Jun 6 01:03:30 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 18:03:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Syngas was Re: Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <94802e86d01ad2fb2df3780ccee0a170@sollegro.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> <017d01dcf513$9576d910$c0648b30$@rainier66.com> <94802e86d01ad2fb2df3780ccee0a170@sollegro.com> Message-ID: <002601dcf550$4aee9210$e0cbb630$@rainier66.com> On 2026-06-05 15:41, Keith Henson wrote: ... > > In the long run, cars are going to have to be electric. > > Other uses for oil are hard to substitute, but we will have to do it > somehow. I am pretty sure the long run will be completely irrelevant. Ray Kurzweil's prediction of singularity by 2029 appears to be pretty accurate. But consider back in about 2002 when Eliezer was doing Singularity conferences. He and others mapped out singularity scenarios. We have already seen the super-hard takeoff scenario disproven: in that one, the singularity just happens, with very little advance notice, no one expecting it, like the Spanish Inquisition. We see plenty of preliminary developments showing us what is coming. Now it appears to be a race to generate enough power to make it happen. I don't recall that scenario anywhere in Elizer's models, or anyone else's. Anyone? spike From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 09:32:16 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2026 10:32:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Syngas was Re: Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <002601dcf550$4aee9210$e0cbb630$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> <017d01dcf513$9576d910$c0648b30$@rainier66.com> <94802e86d01ad2fb2df3780ccee0a170@sollegro.com> <002601dcf550$4aee9210$e0cbb630$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 at 02:04, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > I am pretty sure the long run will be completely irrelevant. Ray Kurzweil's prediction of singularity by 2029 appears to be pretty accurate. > > But consider back in about 2002 when Eliezer was doing Singularity conferences. He and others mapped out singularity scenarios. We have already seen the super-hard takeoff scenario disproven: in that one, the singularity just happens, with very little advance notice, no one expecting it, like the Spanish Inquisition. We see plenty of preliminary developments showing us what is coming. > > Now it appears to be a race to generate enough power to make it happen. I don't recall that scenario anywhere in Elizer's models, or anyone else's. Anyone? > > spike > _______________________________________________ You're right. Nobody predicted the huge increase in electric power demand. Back then, Moore's law was rapidly increasing the power of computers and predictions were more concerned with how AI would develop. Nobody thought about what would happen when everyone in the world started to chat to AIs and the power that would be required for AI inference processing. As AI takes over more and more business processes, our whole civilization will become dependent on the AI data centres. BillK From postmowoods at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 09:48:09 2026 From: postmowoods at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2026 03:48:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <001501dcf521$6ffa1ae0$4fee50a0$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> <017d01dcf513$9576d910$c0648b30$@rainier66.com> <001501dcf521$6ffa1ae0$4fee50a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 1:28?PM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > Keith no power generation scheme will do it, if you mean do it all. But all can do some. Given enough power, coal can be converted to oil. The South Africans have been doing that for decades. PV farms, solar concentrators and wind turbines can supply power when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, which could be used to convert coal to oil, off grid, no government participation needed. A data center could devour what it needs, then the excess converted to other forms. It will take a huge investment, agreed, but there is a lot of venture capital recognizing the dire and immediate need. > > spike South Africa's plant that converts coal to oil is one of the largest CO2 emitters on the planet. My brother's career was spent working for the company that did that. I think I've told this story before, but the construction of that plant to avoid anti-aparteid sanctions is one of the better examples of unintended side effects out there. A short term problem, aparteid, which was going to eventually go down anyway, turned into a hundred year problem venting CO2 like a small volcano. In case someone thinks everyone who ate the shit sandwitch of voting for Trump is irrational, I'm currently in the process of installing a large array of solar panels on my property. Not for my house, but for my little factory. -Kelly From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 11:46:46 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2026 07:46:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 4:06?PM wrote: *> We don?t know what the next guy will do. * *You're assuming that at noon on January 20, 2029 we will have a new president and maybe that will be true but it is far from a sure thing. Yes there is a piece of paper in the National Archives Building in Washington that says there must be, but the current POTUS vividly demonstrated to all on January 6 2020 that he doesn't give a shit about the Constitution. * *I once thought POTUS definitely will have a third term but now I think there's a reasonable chance he won't be able to, even though he certainly wants one, because thanks to AI the next 2 years are going to be very turbulent and our current president is far too stupid to be able to deal with it, so his popularity is likely to suffer a massive hit, even with this hard-core MAGA supporters. * *> He might be anti-AI. * *If there is a new POTUS he might spout anti-AI rhetoric as an aid in getting elected, in fact he probably will because by 2029 AI will probably be pretty unpopular with the general public, but I don't think he will do anything to actually slow down AI advancement in the US because by then there wouldn't be much he could do, and because his power, at least in the short term, depends on being ahead in the AI race. * *And for a politician power is more important than every other consideration put together. If you don't believe me just look at any of the televised cabinet meetings of the current POTUS and how all the members take turns to publicly prostitute themselves with smarmy sycophancy. They do this because they know that kissing the man's ass is the only way they can stay in power, and they know that the one thing He Who Must Not Be Named demands of all his subordinates is that they be Yes Men who smother him with flattery.* * I am reminded of what the character O'Brien says about power in the book 1984: * *"Power is not a means; it is an end. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever."* *John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 12:07:14 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2026 08:07:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Syngas was Re: Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <94802e86d01ad2fb2df3780ccee0a170@sollegro.com> References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> <017d01dcf513$9576d910$c0648b30$@rainier66.com> <94802e86d01ad2fb2df3780ccee0a170@sollegro.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 8:56?PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> we can go really BLACK these days (vid.Vantablack)* *Vantablack is extremely delicate, it can't even be touched without permanent damage. * *John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 12:35:08 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2026 08:35:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Police Tussle With Diabetes Experts at ADA Meeting Message-ID: *Yet more anti-science behavior generated by the current POTUS * * Police Tussle With Diabetes Experts at ADA Meeting* *John K Clark See what's on my list at Extropolis * *dl'* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Jun 6 13:45:02 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2026 06:45:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@r ainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Sent: Saturday, 6 June, 2026 4:47 AM To: spike at rainier66.com Cc: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 4:06?PM > wrote: > We don?t know what the next guy will do. >? the current POTUS vividly demonstrated to all on January 6 2020 that he doesn't give a shit about the Constitution? But we do. The constitution is what creates all that power you are imagining. On 20 Jan 2029, SCOTUS swears in someone else. It doesn?t matter where it takes place, it will. It doesn?t matter who is holding the White House, for that is only an office building. >> He might be anti-AI. >? by 2029 AI will probably be pretty unpopular with the general public? Why do you think that? The comment is worth exploring. >? If you don't believe me just look at any of the televised cabinet meetings of the current POTUS and how all the members take turns to publicly prostitute themselves with smarmy sycophancy?. Televised? So this is a TV program? In any way related to actual cabinet meetings? How? How can we know? We don?t? >... I am reminded of what the character O'Brien says about power in the book 1984? John K Clark If the office had anything like the level of power you are imagining, that shutdown a few months ago would never have happened. POTUS had majorities in both houses and still couldn?t get the government reopened. But the important question is why do you think AI will be unpopular with the general public? Many use it every day. I use it many times every day. Many of us in this forum do. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Jun 6 15:42:57 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2026 08:42:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] what are they claiming? Message-ID: <002701dcf5cb$264e8ac0$72eba040$@rainier66.com> This outfit is claiming they can keep parts of the brain "alive" with perfusion. I recall that being a dream of one of our late posters. >From groundbreaking neuroscience begins a transformative future. I can't really tell from their site how much is science and how much is hype. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 16:02:33 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2026 12:02:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] what are they claiming? In-Reply-To: <002701dcf5cb$264e8ac0$72eba040$@rainier66.com> References: <002701dcf5cb$264e8ac0$72eba040$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: https://www.science.org/content/article/not-alive-not-dead-disembodied-human-brains-used-drug-testing says that Bexorg is not all hype. That said, the specifics are not exactly what you'd hope for - not yet, anyway. Maybe someday they'll be able to let the brains be fully conscious and continue to control persons, rather than being stripped down to mechanical functions. That said, if they can keep the brain alive, one wonders if they might be able to come up with life support capable of keeping the rest of a body alive, and be able to install an uploaded-to-silicon mind atop that...again, someday. Current thinking is that a brainless body could be kept alive for a few years at most, and more likely a far lesser timespan, without much better technology. On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:43?AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > This outfit is claiming they can keep parts of the brain ?alive? with perfusion. I recall that being a dream of one of our late posters. > > > > From groundbreaking neuroscience begins a transformative future. > > > > I can?t really tell from their site how much is science and how much is hype. > > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 16:53:54 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2026 17:53:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Data Centers need a lot of resources Message-ID: Spike mentioned that there appears to be much spare land in the US, where data centers could be built. But they need much more than just land. A new report has investigated the requirements. BillK Quotes: Rising Emissions, Depleting Water and Vanishing Land? UN Scientists: AI Is Threatening Natural Resources for Billions By 2030, AI's water use will match the needs of 1.3 billion people while its power use triples that of 650 million, UN University investigation warns Date Published 3 Jun 2026 Yet every kilowatt-hour of electricity used to train or run an AI system also carries a water footprint, from cooling and power generation, and a land footprint, from energy infrastructure and supply chains. These three footprints do not move in the same direction. Switching from coal to bioenergy, for example, can on average cut the carbon footprint of electricity by 70 per cent, while increasing its water footprint more than thirty-fold and its land footprint a hundred-fold. --------------- From spike at rainier66.com Sat Jun 6 18:13:42 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2026 11:13:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Data Centers need a lot of resources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006701dcf5e0$355dee60$a019cb20$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] Data Centers need a lot of resources Spike mentioned that there appears to be much spare land in the US, where data centers could be built. But they need much more than just land. A new report has investigated the requirements. BillK Quotes: Rising Emissions, Depleting Water and Vanishing Land? UN Scientists: AI Is Threatening Natural Resources for Billions By 2030, AI's water use will match the needs of 1.3 billion people while its power use triples that of 650 million, UN University investigation warns Date Published 3 Jun 2026 >...Yet every kilowatt-hour of electricity used to train or run an AI system also carries a water footprint... --------------- _______________________________________________ Ja. That place I was looking at in Wyoming has water. But I keep returning to the advantages of using the sea as a cooling water source without phase change. That can be done with a coal or natural gas plant, and those can be located at sea or on shore. Cold water helps. If a plant is located in the Aleutians for instance, it could be scaled up as much as we need without bothering anyone. Note Sanak Island. That place looks like it really needs a data center with a huge coal or natural gas burning power plant. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 19:13:40 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2026 12:13:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <069201dcf4a7$8c1ed960$a45c8c20$@rainier66.com> <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <012601dcf506$26e89d60$74b9d820$@rainier66.com> <017d01dcf513$9576d910$c0648b30$@rainier66.com> <001501dcf521$6ffa1ae0$4fee50a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 2:49?AM Kelly Anderson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: snip South Africa's plant that converts coal to oil is one of the largest > CO2 emitters on the planet. My brother's career was spent working for > the company that did that. I think I've told this story before, but > the construction of that plant to avoid anti-aparteid sanctions is one > of the better examples of unintended side effects out there. A short > term problem, aparteid, which was going to eventually go down anyway, > turned into a hundred year problem venting CO2 like a small volcano. > > In case someone thinks everyone who ate the shit sandwitch of voting > for Trump is irrational, I'm currently in the process of installing a > large array of solar panels on my property. Not for my house, but for > my little factory. > > -Kelly > I knew (through an anti-scientific chat room) the US engineer who took a ship load of North Dakota lignite coal to SA to test in the gasifiers at the Sasol plant. This happened around 1980 when the US was concerned about not having enough natural gas, so the Feds built this billion dollar gasification synfuel plant that gasifies 16,000 tons of coal a day. The syngas is passed through a nickel catalyst bed that converts it to methane. By the time the plant was finished, shale gas had been developed. That killed the economics, so the plant could never pay off the capital investment. The government sold the plant for a dollar or some nominal fee to a power company which has run the plant since then. They make and sell synthetic natural gas into the national gas distribution network. They also isolate the CO2 byproduct and ship that into Canada for enhanced oil recovery. I don't know the relative size of this plant to the South African plant. Keith _____________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 19:28:05 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2026 15:28:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> References: <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 9:45?AM wrote: > *>>? the current POTUS vividly demonstrated to all on January 6 2020 that >> he doesn't give a shit about the Constitution?* > > > > *>But we do.* > *Yes but our opinions don't matter because we are not the president. * *> The constitution is what creates all that power* > *Nope. Dried wood pulp does not have that ability, I wish it did. You are confusing the difference between Physical law and Human law. Both murder and traveling faster than light are against the "law", but it is still possible to do one of those things. * > *>>? by 2029 AI will probably be pretty unpopular with the general public?* > > > > *> Why do you think that? The comment is worth exploring.* > *By January 20, 2029 hundreds of millions of hard-working highly educated Americans will not just be unemployed, they will be permanently unemployable, and you can be absolutely certain they will NOT quietly starve to death. There will be blood in the streets unless drastic steps are taken, like immediately establishing a Universal Basic Income; but the ossified brain of our current POTUS and **his billionaire buddies in his Cabinet **will be unable to embrace such a radical idea. They will continue to ask ridiculous questions such as "where will the money for that come from?" because they will continue to use outdated concepts to divide the world such as "Liberal" and "Conservative", instead of "Before AI" and "After AI". * *Also, as time goes by it will become increasingly obvious that the day when biological humans are no longer the ones making the world's most important decisions is fast approaching, and that fact will not sit well with some.* *>>?** just look at any of the televised cabinet meetings of the current >> POTUS and how all the members take turns to publicly prostitute themselves >> with smarmy sycophancy?.* > > > > *> Televised?* > *Yes* * > So this is a TV program? * > *Unfortunately, yes. Believe it or not this atrocity was televised live on CNN and I'm sure many other channels: * *Trump's cabinet sycophantic behavior towards their Dear Leader. * *> But the important question is why do you think AI will be unpopular with > the general public? Many use it every day. I use it many times every > day. Many of us in this forum do. * > *Sure, I love AI too but by no stretch of the imagination could any member of this form be considered a typical member of the general public, and I'm probably the biggest weirdo of the bunch. * *Multiple commencement speakers booed for AI comments during graduation speeches * *John K Clark * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Jun 6 19:33:55 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2026 12:33:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 9:45?AM > wrote: >>? the current POTUS vividly demonstrated to all on January 6 2020 that he doesn't give a shit about the Constitution? >But we do. >?Yes but our opinions don't matter because we are not the president. A president?s power is derived from the constitution. Without it, he is just another person. >? They will continue to ask ridiculous questions such as "where will the money for that come from?" John K Clark OK then, I will take that bait. Where will the money come from? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 19:45:16 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2026 15:45:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> References: <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 3:33?PM wrote: *>> ? They will continue to ask ridiculous questions such as "where will >> the money for that come from?" John K Clark * > > > *> OK then, I will take that bait. Where will the money come from?* *Your find this incomprehensible because you assume there will always be an unbreakable relationship between Human labor- money- and the ability to obtain nice stuff; but one of those 3 things is just a few years away from being permanently taken off the table. We are about to enter a new world because human labor is definitely going away, I hope that's because labor goes away, but it might be because humans go away.* *John K Clark * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 20:26:16 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2026 16:26:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] This is very cool. Literally Message-ID: *Self-Cooling Paint* *John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 01:24:12 2026 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2026 19:24:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 1:48?PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *human labor is definitely going away* > I don't think I agree with this. Sure, we'll be able to get everything nice we have now, with near zero labor (our bots will get it for us) but humans tend to have an infinite desire, don't they? Until all diseases are cured (including all types of aging), until there is no hunger anywhere on earth, until we are all taking trips to the stars, until we have an infinite amount of phenomenal artwork experiences... to name just as few ininitely large tasks, there will always be more work to do to achieve those things, no matter how many bots you have working for you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 10:59:47 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 06:59:47 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 9:25?PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *>> human labor is definitely going away* >> > *> I don't think I agree with this. Sure, we'll be able to get everything > nice we have now, with near zero labor (our bots will get it for us) but > humans tend to have an infinite desire, don't they?* > *Yes so AI, and Nanotechnology which will accompany it, will never be able to satisfy all desires, we still won't be able to move faster than light or travel to the past; but it can sure as hell provide a Universal Basic Income that is large enough to keep tens of millions of Americans from starving to death in the next few years, and it can provide free top notch healthcare to all US citizens, just as every other rich industrial nation on the planet has been doing for its citizens FOR DECADES, even though per capita they spend MUCH less on healthcare than the US does. * *But as people are starving and blood is running in the streets a fossil like He Who Must Not Be Named will still be stuck in the past and be obsessed with the obsolete liberal versus conservative dynamic while uttering clich?s about the evils of welfare and asking stupid questions like "where will the money come from?" The only good that will come from this horror is that his ensuing unpopularity will make it more difficult for him to achieve a third term. * *> Until all diseases are cured (including all types of aging), until there > is no hunger anywhere on earth...* > *Both those problems can be solved by simply making sure atoms are arranged in the correct pattern. * *> until we are all taking trips to the stars, until we have an infinite > amount of phenomenal artwork experiences... to name just as few ininitely > large tasks, ...* > *After it becomes clear that the purpose of life can not be work, **AI is not going to be able to answer the question "is existence better than non-existence?" Each individual is going to have to find their own answer to that. And some may not like the answer they come up with, so I wouldn't be surprised if the suicide rate goes up. As for me I don't care if the universe thinks I'm useless because the universe has its opinion and I have mine. * * John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Jun 7 17:17:44 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 10:17:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@r ainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat ? >?stupid questions like "where will the money come from?" ?John K Clark OK assume AI, nanotech, singularity, unimaginable wealth (whose?) OK all very well, let us hope you are right. Sooo? Where will the money come from? You punted on that one yesterday, and again you dismiss it by calling it a stupid question. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 17:36:30 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 13:36:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> References: <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 1:17?PM wrote: *> Where will the money come from? * *Oh for Darwin's sake! You're still stuck in silly antique pre-AI political ideologies that are soon to become completely irrelevant. Do you really think Mr. Jupiter brain gives a damn about liberalism or conservatism? * *> again you dismiss it by calling it a stupid question.* > *Well, the only reason I did that was because IT IS. * * John K Clark* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Jun 7 17:39:59 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 10:39:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00da01dcf6a4$aa71b3c0$ff551b40$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 1:17?PM > wrote: >> Where will the money come from? >?Oh for Darwin's sake! You're still stuck in silly antique pre-AI political ideologies that are soon to become completely irrelevant. Do you really think Mr. Jupiter brain gives a damn about liberalism or conservatism? I didn?t mention anything about liberalism, conservatism or political ideologies of any kind. >> again you dismiss it by calling it a stupid question. >?Well, the only reason I did that was because IT IS. John K Clark John it is OK to just say you don?t know. We don?t either. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 17:57:30 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 13:57:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <00da01dcf6a4$aa71b3c0$ff551b40$@rainier66.com> References: <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <00da01dcf6a4$aa71b3c0$ff551b40$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 1:40?PM wrote: *> I didn?t mention anything about liberalism, conservatism or political > ideologies of any kind.* *You didn't need to, it's obvious that nobody would even ask such a question if they weren't a prisoner of an antiquated political ideology; and I'm not just talking about right-wing politics, exactly the same thing is true of left-wing politics. * *> John it is OK to just say you don?t know. We don?t either.* *Spike, are you trying to tell me with a straight face that in a world of advance AI, and probably Drexler style Nanotechnology, you don't think we will be able to find enough wealth to save tens of millions of the citizens of the most powerful country in the world from starving to death, or to guarantee that all its citizens receive healthcare as good as that of every other technologically advanced country in the world? Do you really want to tell me that? * *John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 18:25:54 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 19:25:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Future Economics after all humans become unemployed Message-ID: After AI takes over and runs everything, with AI robots and automation producing everything, humans will need some form of Universal Basic Income. There will be no point in governments taxing UBI, so where will their revenue come from? BillK I asked Nemotron 3 Ultra AI - The Tax Base Doesn't Disappear?It Shifts to Capital. If robots/AI produce all goods/services, GDP doesn't go to zero; it likely explodes. But 100% of value accrues to capital owners (equity, IP, land, compute, energy, raw materials). The entire tax burden must move to the factors of production that remain scarce: Capital / Equity (ownership of AI/robot fleets) Compute & Energy (the "fuel" of intelligence) Land / Natural Resources (physical substrate) Consumption / VAT (capturing value at point of sale) Wealth / Asset Values (stock of capital) ------------------- From spike at rainier66.com Sun Jun 7 18:28:51 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 11:28:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@r ainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <00da01dcf6a4$aa71b3c0$ff551b40$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <011101dcf6ab$7d7b8600$78729200$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark >> John it is OK to just say you don?t know. We don?t either. >?Spike?in a world of advance AI, and probably Drexler style Nanotechnology, you don't think we will be able to find enough wealth to save tens of millions ? John K Clark This brings us one step closer. In your vision, the requisite wealth is found. We find enough wealth. OK then. Where? Whose wealth do we find? Your notion of finding enough wealth sounds a lot like the commentary by a young representative who opined seven and a half years ago: ?The world is going to end in twelve years if we don?t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it?? Yes, it is. We didn?t address climate change in any meaningful way because we didn?t find any wealth to pay for it. So now we have four and a half years left before the world ends, for no one paid for it. Her suggestion: JUST PAY FOR IT! OK then. How? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 19:42:29 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 15:42:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <011101dcf6ab$7d7b8600$78729200$@rainier66.com> References: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <00da01dcf6a4$aa71b3c0$ff551b40$@rainier66.com> <011101dcf6ab$7d7b8600$78729200$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 2:28?PM wrote: > *>>?Spike?in a world of advance AI, and probably Drexler style >> Nanotechnology, you don't think we will be able to find enough wealth to >> save tens of millions **of the citizens of the most powerful country in >> the world from starving to death, or to guarantee that all its citizens >> receive healthcare as good as that of every other technologically advanced >> country in the world? * > > > *> This brings us one step closer. In your vision, the requisite wealth > is found. We find enough wealth. OK then. Where? Whose wealth do we > find? * > *Whose wealth? If POTUS has half a brain he will realize that at least a part of the GARGANTUAN amount of newly generated wealth should belong to the tens of millions of American citizens who in just a few years will be educated, young, unemployed and unemployable, hungry, and very VERY angry; because the first target of their rage will be the billionaire class of which he and Elon Musk are the most prominent, and hated, members. However, POTUS seems to possess only about a third of a brain, and I'm sure he knows next to nothing about the French revolution and how that turned out, so both he and the nation may be in deep trouble. * *> We didn?t address climate change in any meaningful way because we didn?t > find any wealth to pay for it* *I said it before I'll say it again, it's silly to compare something as trivial as climate change with the AI revolution, the most significant event since the Cambrian Explosion. And even the environmentalists never claimed that solving climate change would generate wealth, in fact most of the proposed solutions would decrease it, but they insisted we should do it anyway. * * > **Her suggestion: JUST PAY FOR IT! OK then. How?* *OK Spike it's time for you to answer my question. I wanna hear your scenario; we have achieved superhuman AI and Nanotechnology and yet it will be impossible to prevent millions of Americans from starving to death because it would just be too expensive, and we can't even give them as good healthcare as every other industrial nation on earth was able to do for their citizens even in the pre-AI age. Other than the AI wanting those people to die, give me some details, why will it be impossible to save them?* *Where will the money come from? * *Government printing presses. * *That will cause inflation.* *Not if wealth can be created faster than printing presses can print, and in the new age we are entering it can be. * * John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Jun 7 20:01:47 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 13:01:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <00da01dcf6a4$aa71b3c0$ff551b40$@rainier66.com> <011101d cf6ab$7d7b8600$78729200$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003e01dcf6b8$7955e540$6c01afc0$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 2:28?PM > wrote: >>>?Spike?we will be able to find enough wealth to save tens of millions ? >> This brings us one step closer. In your vision, the requisite wealth is found. We find enough wealth. OK then. Where? Whose wealth do we find? >?Whose wealth? If POTUS? Irrelevant. POTUS doesn?t find wealth or make laws. > We didn?t address climate change in any meaningful way because we didn?t find any wealth to pay for it >?I said it before I'll say it again, it's silly to compare something as trivial as climate change with the AI revolution?. I agree. However my question is about how to ?find? all the unimaginable wealth, and whose unimaginable wealth is unimaginably found. > Her suggestion: JUST PAY FOR IT! OK then. How? >?OK Spike it's time for you to answer my question. I wanna hear your scenario; we have achieved superhuman AI and Nanotechnology and yet it will be impossible to prevent millions of Americans from starving to death because it would just be too expensive?. I am not claiming to know. It has a lot to do with what the superhuman AI decides to do. There is no point in obsessing about POTUS, for he doesn?t make law or find wealth. >?Where will the money come from? Government printing presses?. OK, so are you suggesting the government print counterfeit money? That isn?t finding wealth, that?s just counterfeiting. >?That will cause inflation?. Not necessarily. If sufficient investors come buying treasuries, indicating arbitrarily high confidence in the currency, it will be like before the superhuman AI occurred. >?Not if wealth can be created faster than printing presses can print, and in the new age we are entering it can be. John K Clark That would depend entirely on whose wealth is generated. If it is generated by AI, then the likely recipients are Alphabet, Meta, Nvidia, Microsloth, Amazon and Tesla. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sun Jun 7 20:05:57 2026 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2026 13:05:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <340240a0f1877ba20196def712c45c21@sollegro.com> On 2026-06-07 03:59, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 9:25?PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat > wrote: > >>>>> human labor is definitely going away > >> >> _> I don't think I agree with this. Sure, we'll be able to get >> everything nice we have now, with near zero labor (our bots will get >> it for us) but humans tend to have an infinite desire, don't they?_ > > Yes so AI, and Nanotechnology which will accompany it, will never be > able to satisfy all desires, we still won't be able to move faster > than light or travel to the past; but it can sure as hell provide a > Universal Basic Income that is large enough to keep tens of millions > of Americans from starving to death in the next few years, and it can > provide free top notch healthcare to all US citizens, just as every > other rich industrial nation on the planet has been doing for its > citizens FOR DECADES, even though per capita they spend MUCH less on > healthcare than the US does. > > But as people are starving and blood is running in the streets a > fossil like He Who Must Not Be Named will still be stuck in the past > and be obsessed with the obsolete liberal versus conservative dynamic > while uttering clich?s about the evils of welfare and asking stupid > questions like "where will the money come from?" The only good that > will come from this horror is that his ensuing unpopularity will make > it more difficult for him to achieve a third term. > >> _> Until all diseases are cured (including all types of aging), >> until there is no hunger anywhere on earth..._ > > Both those problems can be solved by simply making sure atoms are > arranged in the correct pattern. > >> _> until we are all taking trips to the stars, until we have an >> infinite amount of phenomenal artwork experiences... to name just as >> few infinitely large tasks, ..._ > > After it becomes clear that the purpose of life can not be work, AI is > not going to be able to answer the question "is existence better than > non-existence?" As a Neo-Darwinian with a strong background in biology, I can unequivocally say that the purpose of life is to survive so, yes. If you are alive then existence should be preferable to non-existence, whether as a billionaire, a dolphin, or a tapeworm. That being said, dolphins have been known to commit suicide too. Still not a good idea in my opinion, unless you are buying something important with your sacrifice. > Each individual is going to have to find their own > answer to that. And some may not like the answer they come up with, so > I wouldn't be surprised if the suicide rate goes up. As for me I don't > care if the universe thinks I'm useless because the universe has its > opinion and I have mine. I don't think you are useless, John. And neither would a super-intelligent AI. Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 20:15:21 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:15:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <003e01dcf6b8$7955e540$6c01afc0$@rainier66.com> References: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <00da01dcf6a4$aa71b3c0$ff551b40$@rainier66.com> <003e01dcf6b8$7955e540$6c01afc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 4:01?PM wrote: * > POTUS doesn?t find wealth or make laws*. > *POTUS also can't start a war, it says that very clearly in the Constitution, and yet POTUS has started a war. * > *>?OK Spike it's time for you to answer my question. I wanna hear your >> scenario; we have achieved superhuman AI and Nanotechnology and yet it will >> be impossible to prevent millions of Americans from starving to death >> because it would just be too expensive?.* > > > > *> I am not claiming to know.* > *So you don't know why it will be impossible to keep tens of millions of Americans from starving to death, you just know it will be. * *> OK, so are you suggesting the government print counterfeit money? * > *Let me know when you decide to be serious. * *John K Clark* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 20:57:44 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 13:57:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Emergent behavior In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wow. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Simon Quellen Field AB6NY Date: Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 9:49?AM Subject: Emergent behavior To: Inventor's Lunch " https://medium.com/data-science-collective/the-strangest-things-weve-discovered-inside-ai-7-rare-facts-about-how-modern-neural-networks-36d4f71ecb30?sk=v2%2Fa65f84f9-7817-468a-b73c-788ca0a13ec5 " -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Inventor's Lunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inventors-lunch+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/inventors-lunch/CAA0yOM6hGWBExOy1bt%3DggE--XR9-Bb%3D3xN3t2q9Ey9n-nQR6YA%40mail.gmail.com . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 21:13:41 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 14:13:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> References: <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Money is a way to equate goods and services of all kinds. Not sure if the question makes sense in such a world. Keith On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 10:18?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *John Clark via extropy-chat > *?* > > > > *>?stupid questions like "where will the money come from?" ?John K Clark* > > > > *OK assume AI, nanotech, singularity, unimaginable wealth (whose?) OK all > very well, let us hope you are right. Sooo? Where will the money come > from? * > > > > *You punted on that one yesterday, and again you dismiss it by calling it > a stupid question.* > > > > *spike* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Jun 7 21:34:52 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 14:34:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@r ainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <00da01dcf6a4$aa71b3c0$ff551b40$@rainier66.com> <003e01d cf6b8$7955e540$6c01afc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <007d01dcf6c5$7a416ad0$6ec44070$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 4:01?PM > wrote: > POTUS doesn?t find wealth or make laws. >?POTUS also can't start a war, it says that very clearly in the Constitution, and yet POTUS has started a war?. If you wish to call police actions a war, the precedent goes back at least to Jefferson, who ordered military action against the Barbary pirates. Iran is the Hormuz pirates. > I am not claiming to know. >?So you don't know why it will be impossible to keep tens of millions of Americans from starving to death, you just know it will be?. John you are the one who is claiming money will be found. Whose? Where? > OK, so are you suggesting the government print counterfeit money? >?Let me know when you decide to be serious. John K Clark You followed that claim with comments about POTUS. But POTUS does not command the treasury. He cannot command them to print counterfeit money. If he could, he would. Let me know when you have any actual ideas, rather than just incessant campaigning. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Jun 7 21:43:36 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 14:43:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> From: Keith Henson Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! >>?stupid questions like "where will the money come from?" ?John K Clark >?Money is a way to equate goods and services of all kinds. Not sure if the question makes sense in such a world. Keith Hi Keith, I have heard that it was an incredibly stupid question, and that it isn?t clear if the question makes sense in a singularity world. OK. But still nothing that sounds much like an answer, even a stupid one. I have heard an illegal one: John?s suggestion that the Treasury prints counterfeit cash, which then belongs to? who? Why? How does that help? If there is some way to find money, why aren?t we finding it now, to balance the budget? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 23:08:21 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:08:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> References: <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 2:43?PM wrote > > > *From:* Keith Henson > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! > > *Hi Keith,* > > > > *I have heard that it was an incredibly stupid question, and that it isn?t > clear if the question makes sense in a singularity world. OK. But still > nothing that sounds much like an answer, even a stupid one. I have heard > an illegal one: John?s suggestion that the Treasury prints counterfeit > cash, * > The treasury cannot print counterfeit cash by definition. *which then belongs to? who? Why? How does that help? If there is some > way to find money, why aren?t we finding it now, to balance the budget?* > > For a long time now, the government has been creating money. That is the root of inflation. But it is needed to keep up with economic growth. Not that I understand it. Nor do I understand how things will work out after the singularity rolls over everything. Back around 1990 I wrote about people having a backpack that folded out into a leaf so people got all their food directly from the sun. So maybe people won't starve after all. > * Keith* > > *spike* > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Jun 7 23:35:08 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:35:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@r ainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <005701dcf6d6$47790520$d66b0f60$@rainier66.com> From: Keith Henson . >?The treasury cannot print counterfeit cash by definition?. They can only print what is covered by sales of T-bills. Real money must be loaned to the treasury in order to authorize it to print that amount of money. But that?s all it can print. If it prints more money than sales of teebs generated, that amount is counterfeit. The treasury cannot legally print more than it takes in. If no one will buy the teebs, they must offer higher interest to incentivize investors, which might be where John was getting that notion of money printing being inflationary. In any case, a former economic advisor explains everything thus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fj0zRmEWYc >? Nor do I understand how things will work out after the singularity rolls over everything? Ja, I am with you there. AI might disrupt commerce to where the treasury printing money doesn?t have much effect. We still need electronic communications to support modern commerce. We do not have the option to returning to paper money. It might be that the singularity just kills everybody, as Eliezer has been warning for decades. But what I lie awake worrying about is if it doesn?t. Then what? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 02:05:11 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 19:05:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <005701dcf6d6$47790520$d66b0f60$@rainier66.com> References: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> <005701dcf6d6$47790520$d66b0f60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 4:35?PM wrote: > > > *From:* Keith Henson > *.* > > >?The treasury cannot print counterfeit cash by definition?. > > > > They can only print what is covered by sales of T-bills. Real money > No money is real money unless you are talking about silver and gold or other things with value. Even there, money is a shared belief rather than something tangible. Legal or not, if the treasury printed it, it is not counterfeit. Only unauthorized private parties can do that. But thinking about it, people can mine bitcoins. Is tht counterfeit? > > > If no one will buy the teebs, they must offer higher interest to > incentivize investors, which might be where John was getting that notion of > money printing being inflationary. > > > Countries that did print lots of money had a heck of a lot of inflation, If everyone owned a fabricator which would make anything you want, that would about take care of commerce. In any case, a former economic advisort explains everything thus: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fj0zRmEWYc > > > > >? Nor do I understand how things will work out after the singularity > rolls over everything? > > > > Ja, I am with you there. AI might disrupt commerce to where the treasury > printing money doesn?t have much effect. We still need electronic > communications to support modern commerce. We do not have the option to > returning to paper money. > > > > It might be that the singularity just kills everybody, as Eliezer has been > warning for decades. But what I lie awake worrying about is if it > doesn?t. Then what? > > If we are alive, we will find out. Keith > spike > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 07:02:18 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 00:02:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Need creative help In-Reply-To: References: <002101dcf35b$2ecf3fe0$8c6dbfa0$@millennium-project.org> <07df01dcf410$b9fc3540$2df49fc0$@sympatico.ca> Message-ID: I think O'Neill mentioned a 2 for one orbit, half a lunar month. But it does not make any difference as long as it is in free space. At one point, I looked into lunar elevators. They work by going through L1 and hanging down into the Earth's gravity. As I recall, if you extended that part to around 190,000 km you were at the end of a Hohmann transfer orbit to GEO. The big problem with any space colony proposal is to find something for the inhabitants to do. That takes materials. A space elevator off the moon would give them that. hBest wishes, Keith On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 4:24?PM Mark Sonter < mark.sonter at asteroidenterprises.com> wrote: > Hi Kieran, > > > > A 3:1 lunar resonant orbit (ie 9-day period) will have a perigee a couple > of thousand km above GEO and an apogee a couple of thousand km below EM L1 > altitude, but 180 degrees away (work it out). > > > > We had a bit of a look at this when I was associated with Deep Space > Industries, but nothing was ever written up / published. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Mark > > > > -- > Mark J Sonter, mobile 0447 755 598 (delete '0' & replace with '61' > country code if calling from overseas) > > > Director & Principal Consultant, Radiation Advice & Solutions Pty Ltd, abn > 31 891 761 435 > Principal, Asteroid Enterprises Pty Ltd, abn 53 008 115 302 > Chairman, Off Earth Resources Pty Ltd, abn 31 664 219 372 > > Adjunct Assoc Prof, Andy Thomas Centre for Space Resources, Univ of > Adelaide > > 116 Pennine Drive, South Maclean, Queensland 4280, Australia > > Please use marksonter at gmail.com for general or radiation related > communications, and mark.sonter at asteroidenterprises.com for space related > topics. > > > > > ?Keep everything as simple as possible, but no simpler? - A. Einstein > > > > *From:* k.a.carroll via Power Satellite Economics < > power-satellite-economics at googlegroups.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, 4 June 2026 8:56 PM > *To:* Mark Sonter ; > jerome.glenn at millennium-project.org; 'Paul Werbos' ; > 'John Clark' > *Cc:* 'Keith Henson' ; 'ExI chat list' < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; extropolis at googlegroups.com; 'Power > Satellite Economics' > *Subject:* RE: Need creative help > > > > Mark; > > > > Interesting. I assume that you mean an orbit in a 3:2 orbital resonance > with the Moon, just as Hilda is in a 3:2 orbital resonance with Jupiter? > > > > Has anyone published anything on the orbital dynamics of such a > quasi-Hilda in the Earth-Moon system? If so, I?d be interested to take a > look. > > > > - Kieran > > > > *From:* power-satellite-economics at googlegroups.com < > power-satellite-economics at googlegroups.com> *On Behalf Of *Mark Sonter > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 3, 2026 11:15 PM > *To:* jerome.glenn at millennium-project.org; 'Paul Werbos' < > paul.werbos at gmail.com>; 'John Clark' > *Cc:* 'Keith Henson' ; 'ExI chat list' < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; extropolis at googlegroups.com; 'Power > Satellite Economics' > *Subject:* RE: Need creative help > > > > What about habitats in an Earth-Moon Hilda orbit? > > > > ?The Hilda Habitats? > > > > Closer than L4 or L5. Resonant with the Moon. Close to GEO at Perigee, and > to EM L1 altitude at apogee.. > > > > Can be fed by mass launched from Moon, or imported from NEAs. > > > > Comments? > > > > Mark > > > > -- > Mark J Sonter, mobile 0447 755 598 (delete '0' & replace with '61' > country code if calling from overseas) > > > Director & Principal Consultant, Radiation Advice & Solutions Pty Ltd, abn > 31 891 761 435 > Principal, Asteroid Enterprises Pty Ltd, abn 53 008 115 302 > Chairman, Off Earth Resources Pty Ltd, abn 31 664 219 372 > > Adjunct Assoc Prof, Andy Thomas Centre for Space Resources, Univ of > Adelaide > > 116 Pennine Drive, South Maclean, Queensland 4280, Australia > > Please use marksonter at gmail.com for general or radiation related > communications, and mark.sonter at asteroidenterprises.com for space related > topics. > > > > > ?Keep everything as simple as possible, but no simpler? - A. Einstein > > > > *From:* power-satellite-economics at googlegroups.com < > power-satellite-economics at googlegroups.com> *On Behalf Of * > jerome.glenn at millennium-project.org > *Sent:* Wednesday, 3 June 2026 11:16 PM > *To:* 'Paul Werbos' ; 'John Clark' < > johnkclark at gmail.com> > *Cc:* 'Keith Henson' ; 'ExI chat list' < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; extropolis at googlegroups.com; 'Power > Satellite Economics' > *Subject:* RE: Need creative help > > > > The reason was the merger with L-5 Society and National Space Institute > (sometime referred to as No Space Intelligence). > > > > Jerry > > > > *From:* power-satellite-economics at googlegroups.com < > power-satellite-economics at googlegroups.com> *On Behalf Of *Paul Werbos > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 3, 2026 8:32 AM > *To:* John Clark > *Cc:* Keith Henson ; ExI chat list < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; extropolis at googlegroups.com; Power > Satellite Economics > *Subject:* Re: Need creative help > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 8:20?AM John Clark wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 10:14?PM Keith Henson > wrote: > > > > > > *> **L5 Society was the best name I ever came up with* > > > > *And that was a great name! It's simple and sticks in the mind. Why they > chose to change it to something generic and completely forgettable I have > no idea. * > > > > This is one small example of the many, many things I saw with my own eyes. > > > > The decision was to merge L5 with Von Braun's National Space Institute, to > create NSS. I was the L5 rep to these discussions. If Gary Oleson still > joins these discussions, he may also have relevant memories. The key person > on the NSI side was Carol Rosin, whom I remember quite well from about four > connections which immediately come to mind. (JUST now, I searched... she > still has a big web presence; it says she is 82 years old now. Merger was > intended to bring greater strength through greater unity, but opening to a > larger constituency can sometimes dilute focus. O'Neill had a clear vision, > and it is sad how it is not so visible to the world now as it was then. > > > > > > > > > > > > *John K Clark* > > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Power Satellite Economics" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CAJPayv1fWuJQqtqRTV0VxhbRoNhy7nWMObO4QEwE2LjXXHJWPg%40mail.gmail.com > > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Power Satellite Economics" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CACLqmgc3Cg4tY1V%2BLmGLqmbs6TRt%3D-6wjr%3Dc92KmDKW6xueD9g%40mail.gmail.com > > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Power Satellite Economics" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/002101dcf35b%242ecf3fe0%248c6dbfa0%24%40millennium-project.org > > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Power Satellite Economics" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/ME3P282MB39522D598158BC250AD06B65EA102%40ME3P282MB3952.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM > > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Power Satellite Economics" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/07df01dcf410%24b9fc3540%242df49fc0%24%40sympatico.ca > > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Power Satellite Economics" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/SY4P282MB395409622CA838B1630FB126EA1F2%40SY4P282MB3954.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM > > . > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 12:36:56 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 08:36:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> References: <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 5:44?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *>I have heard that it was an incredibly stupid question* *That's only because it was. * *> I have heard an illegal one: John?s suggestion that the Treasury prints > counterfeit cash* *Don't be ridiculous! I made no such suggestion, and worrying about the government printing counterfeit money is like worrying about Michelangelo having carved a fake Michelangelo statue. The Federal Reserve has been increasing and decreasing the money supply since 1914, when unemployment gets too high they increase the money supply, and when inflation gets too high they decrease it. * *For over a century whenever the Federal Reserve wanted to increase the money supply (print more money) they had several tools they could use to do that. They could buy Treasury securities or mortgage-backed securities from banks, and the payment for this purchase would be simply created, no existing money is transferred.* *Another tool they can use to change the money supply is by adjusting the interest it pays on bank reserves, when it lowers that rate there is less incentive for banks to keep their money there and more incentive to loan that money out. * *The Federal Reserve can also change the discount rate it charges banks for borrowing directly from the Fed, lowering it makes short term borrowing cheaper, increasing a banks tendency to loan aggressively.* *And if the Fed wants to reduce the money supply rather than increase it they simply run these tools in reverse. * *> POTUS does not command the treasury.* *By law t**he Federal Reserve, an independent agency, controls the money supply, not the treasury. And its 7 Board of Governors command the Federal Reserve, and all 7 are presidential appointees with 14 year terms of office. Assuming that the president has not appointed certifiable morons to those 7 positions (admittedly that is a rather large assumption considering the mental health of our current POTUS) when they see that unemployment has increased exponentially but productivity has ALSO been increasing exponentially, they will know what to do. * > * > ** If there is some way to find money, why aren?t we finding it now, > to balance the budget?* *We can't do that today because as of today productivity is not increasing exponentially, but that is going to change in less than 10 years, probably less than 5, perhaps much less. * *John K Clark* > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Mon Jun 8 12:55:49 2026 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2026 05:55:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Obayashi Space Elevator Message-ID: <065706f679afd54ad16aba96c4b22cd8@sollegro.com> The Obayashi Corporation, one of largest publicly-traded Japanese construction companies, has plans to complete a space elevator by the year 2050. https://www.obayashi.co.jp/en/thinking/detail/space_elevator.html "The space elevator is planned to be built by the year 2050 with a capacity to carry 100-ton climbers. It is composed of a 96,000-km carbon nanotube cable, a 400-m diameter floating Earth Port and a 12,500-ton counter-weight. Other facilities include Martian/Lunar Gravity Centers, an Low Earth Orbit Gate, a Geostationary Earth Orbit Station, a Mars Gate and a Solar System Exploration Gate. The construction process consists of deploying the cable and constructing the facilities. It is necessary to analyze the cable dynamics in order to estimate the characteristics of the cable, counter-weight, facilities and climbers, and in order to determine the construction procedures. Parameters for the cable dynamics include tension, displacement and elongation of the cable due to ascending climbers, masses of counter-weight and cable, wind, and fixed loads of facilities. With the help of a computer simulation of the equations of motion, we designed the system and determined the construction process. Based on the results, we conclude the following: construction will be technically feasible with an assumed cable tensile strength of 150 GPa, it will take roughly 20 years to construct the cable, the impacts of wind or Coriolis force on cable displacement are small, and it is essential to fix one end of the cable to the earth's surface, always applying pre-tension at the ground end. According to the plan, a 20-ton cable is deployed initially, and is reinforced 510 times by climbers up to 7,000 tons, ascending in succession over roughly 18 years. The facilities are then transported and constructed within one year." By my estimation, this is so far the largest, most serious attempt at building such a structure. Keith, it looks like the years of advocacy by you and the others might be paying off. Stuart LaForge From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 13:30:55 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 09:30:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Obayashi Space Elevator In-Reply-To: <065706f679afd54ad16aba96c4b22cd8@sollegro.com> References: <065706f679afd54ad16aba96c4b22cd8@sollegro.com> Message-ID: As usual, there is not a thought to the fact that most lower-orbit satellites - including orbital debris - must maneuver to avoid this imposition in their orbit. That seems to be the biggest remaining problem with space elevators. On Mon, Jun 8, 2026, 8:56?AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The Obayashi Corporation, one of largest publicly-traded Japanese > construction companies, has plans to complete a space elevator by the > year 2050. > > https://www.obayashi.co.jp/en/thinking/detail/space_elevator.html > > "The space elevator is planned to be built by the year 2050 with a > capacity to carry 100-ton climbers. It is composed of a 96,000-km carbon > nanotube cable, a 400-m diameter floating Earth Port and a 12,500-ton > counter-weight. Other facilities include Martian/Lunar Gravity Centers, > an Low Earth Orbit Gate, a Geostationary Earth Orbit Station, a Mars > Gate and a Solar System Exploration Gate. > > The construction process consists of deploying the cable and > constructing the facilities. It is necessary to analyze the cable > dynamics in order to estimate the characteristics of the cable, > counter-weight, facilities and climbers, and in order to determine the > construction procedures. Parameters for the cable dynamics include > tension, displacement and elongation of the cable due to ascending > climbers, masses of counter-weight and cable, wind, and fixed loads of > facilities. With the help of a computer simulation of the equations of > motion, we designed the system and determined the construction process. > > Based on the results, we conclude the following: construction will be > technically feasible with an assumed cable tensile strength of 150 GPa, > it will take roughly 20 years to construct the cable, the impacts of > wind or Coriolis force on cable displacement are small, and it is > essential to fix one end of the cable to the earth's surface, always > applying pre-tension at the ground end. According to the plan, a 20-ton > cable is deployed initially, and is reinforced 510 times by climbers up > to 7,000 tons, ascending in succession over roughly 18 years. The > facilities are then transported and constructed within one year." > > By my estimation, this is so far the largest, most serious attempt at > building such a structure. Keith, it looks like the years of advocacy by > you and the others might be paying off. > > Stuart LaForge > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benzaiboc at proton.me Mon Jun 8 14:10:10 2026 From: benzaiboc at proton.me (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2026 14:10:10 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! Message-ID: John Clark wrote: Black! spike wrote: White! John Clark wrote: No, Black! spike wrote: Nope, White! etc... It's obvious where the money comes from, you two just seem to be arguing for argument's sake. Some form of automation comes along and replaces more and more human workers by being massively more efficient and productive, making the humans unemployable and generating massively increased profits. The problem is not seeing where the money comes from, it's in persuading the people who think that they are entitled to keep these enormous profits (mostly people who are already wealthier than 99% of the earth's population), to realise that it's in everybody's interest (including their own) to distribute those profits to society at large. Human nature being what it is, this seems unlikely, which would lead to a world-wide collapse of society. The obvious solution is to take human nature out of the loop by removing control of the profits from the humans and putting it in the hands of more logical and far-seeing non-human intelligences. There's probably not much, if anything, that anyone needs to do to achieve this. It will quite likely happen no matter what we do. It might require a little nudge, but nothing like the effort that would be needed to persuade the 1% to forgo making things so massively unbalanced that they would tip over the entire applecart. It looks more and more likely that we will, sometime in the next decade, win everything or lose everything. If the AIs continue to be dependent on humans in any way, it will be in their own interests to do something to keep the applecart from tipping over, as that would mean their demise as well as ours, so I'd expect them, at some time, to do whatever is necessary to keep us all alive and happy. Perhaps what we should be aiming for instead of 'AI safety', is making sure that humans, and the human economy, remain indispensable to them, at least in the short-term. -- Ben From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 15:52:52 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 08:52:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Need creative help In-Reply-To: References: <002101dcf35b$2ecf3fe0$8c6dbfa0$@millennium-project.org> <07df01dcf410$b9fc3540$2df49fc0$@sympatico.ca> Message-ID: We can always change the name, but the best so far seems to be SolarSyngas. I have considerable doubt that this is enough time to build it before the singularity runs over everything Keith Best wishes, Keith On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 2:35?AM Opener of the Way < openerofthewaysentbymary at gmail.com> wrote: > How about: > SolarForged Syngas > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026, 12:02 AM Keith Henson wrote: > >> I think O'Neill mentioned a 2 for one orbit, half a lunar month. But it >> does not make any difference as long as it is in free space. >> >> At one point, I looked into lunar elevators. They work by going through >> L1 and hanging down into the Earth's gravity. As I recall, if you extended >> that part to around 190,000 km you were at the end of a Hohmann transfer >> orbit to GEO. >> >> The big problem with any space colony proposal is to find something for >> the inhabitants to do. That takes materials. A space elevator off the moon >> would give them that. >> >> hBest wishes, >> >> Keith >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 4:24?PM Mark Sonter < >> mark.sonter at asteroidenterprises.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Kieran, >>> >>> >>> >>> A 3:1 lunar resonant orbit (ie 9-day period) will have a perigee a >>> couple of thousand km above GEO and an apogee a couple of thousand km below >>> EM L1 altitude, but 180 degrees away (work it out). >>> >>> >>> >>> We had a bit of a look at this when I was associated with Deep Space >>> Industries, but nothing was ever written up / published. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mark J Sonter, mobile 0447 755 598 (delete '0' & replace with '61' >>> country code if calling from overseas) >>> >>> >>> Director & Principal Consultant, Radiation Advice & Solutions Pty Ltd, >>> abn 31 891 761 435 >>> Principal, Asteroid Enterprises Pty Ltd, abn 53 008 115 302 >>> Chairman, Off Earth Resources Pty Ltd, abn 31 664 219 372 >>> >>> Adjunct Assoc Prof, Andy Thomas Centre for Space Resources, Univ of >>> Adelaide >>> >>> 116 Pennine Drive, South Maclean, Queensland 4280, Australia >>> >>> >>> Please use marksonter at gmail.com for general or radiation related >>> communications, and mark.sonter at asteroidenterprises.com for space >>> related topics. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ?Keep everything as simple as possible, but no simpler? - A. Einstein >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* k.a.carroll via Power Satellite Economics < >>> power-satellite-economics at googlegroups.com> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 4 June 2026 8:56 PM >>> *To:* Mark Sonter ; >>> jerome.glenn at millennium-project.org; 'Paul Werbos' < >>> paul.werbos at gmail.com>; 'John Clark' >>> *Cc:* 'Keith Henson' ; 'ExI chat list' < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; extropolis at googlegroups.com; 'Power >>> Satellite Economics' >>> *Subject:* RE: Need creative help >>> >>> >>> >>> Mark; >>> >>> >>> >>> Interesting. I assume that you mean an orbit in a 3:2 orbital resonance >>> with the Moon, just as Hilda is in a 3:2 orbital resonance with Jupiter? >>> >>> >>> >>> Has anyone published anything on the orbital dynamics of such a >>> quasi-Hilda in the Earth-Moon system? If so, I?d be interested to take a >>> look. >>> >>> >>> >>> - Kieran >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* power-satellite-economics at googlegroups.com < >>> power-satellite-economics at googlegroups.com> *On Behalf Of *Mark Sonter >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 3, 2026 11:15 PM >>> *To:* jerome.glenn at millennium-project.org; 'Paul Werbos' < >>> paul.werbos at gmail.com>; 'John Clark' >>> *Cc:* 'Keith Henson' ; 'ExI chat list' < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; extropolis at googlegroups.com; 'Power >>> Satellite Economics' >>> *Subject:* RE: Need creative help >>> >>> >>> >>> What about habitats in an Earth-Moon Hilda orbit? >>> >>> >>> >>> ?The Hilda Habitats? >>> >>> >>> >>> Closer than L4 or L5. Resonant with the Moon. Close to GEO at Perigee, >>> and to EM L1 altitude at apogee.. >>> >>> >>> >>> Can be fed by mass launched from Moon, or imported from NEAs. >>> >>> >>> >>> Comments? >>> >>> >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mark J Sonter, mobile 0447 755 598 (delete '0' & replace with '61' >>> country code if calling from overseas) >>> >>> >>> Director & Principal Consultant, Radiation Advice & Solutions Pty Ltd, >>> abn 31 891 761 435 >>> Principal, Asteroid Enterprises Pty Ltd, abn 53 008 115 302 >>> Chairman, Off Earth Resources Pty Ltd, abn 31 664 219 372 >>> >>> Adjunct Assoc Prof, Andy Thomas Centre for Space Resources, Univ of >>> Adelaide >>> >>> 116 Pennine Drive, South Maclean, Queensland 4280, Australia >>> >>> >>> Please use marksonter at gmail.com for general or radiation related >>> communications, and mark.sonter at asteroidenterprises.com for space >>> related topics. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ?Keep everything as simple as possible, but no simpler? - A. Einstein >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* power-satellite-economics at googlegroups.com < >>> power-satellite-economics at googlegroups.com> *On Behalf Of * >>> jerome.glenn at millennium-project.org >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 3 June 2026 11:16 PM >>> *To:* 'Paul Werbos' ; 'John Clark' < >>> johnkclark at gmail.com> >>> *Cc:* 'Keith Henson' ; 'ExI chat list' < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; extropolis at googlegroups.com; 'Power >>> Satellite Economics' >>> *Subject:* RE: Need creative help >>> >>> >>> >>> The reason was the merger with L-5 Society and National Space Institute >>> (sometime referred to as No Space Intelligence). >>> >>> >>> >>> Jerry >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* power-satellite-economics at googlegroups.com < >>> power-satellite-economics at googlegroups.com> *On Behalf Of *Paul Werbos >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 3, 2026 8:32 AM >>> *To:* John Clark >>> *Cc:* Keith Henson ; ExI chat list < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; extropolis at googlegroups.com; Power >>> Satellite Economics >>> *Subject:* Re: Need creative help >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 8:20?AM John Clark wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 10:14?PM Keith Henson >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *> **L5 Society was the best name I ever came up with* >>> >>> >>> >>> *And that was a great name! It's simple and sticks in the mind. Why they >>> chose to change it to something generic and completely forgettable I have >>> no idea. * >>> >>> >>> >>> This is one small example of the many, many things I saw with my own >>> eyes. >>> >>> >>> >>> The decision was to merge L5 with Von Braun's National Space Institute, >>> to create NSS. I was the L5 rep to these discussions. If Gary Oleson still >>> joins these discussions, he may also have relevant memories. The key person >>> on the NSI side was Carol Rosin, whom I remember quite well from about four >>> connections which immediately come to mind. (JUST now, I searched... she >>> still has a big web presence; it says she is 82 years old now. Merger was >>> intended to bring greater strength through greater unity, but opening to a >>> larger constituency can sometimes dilute focus. O'Neill had a clear vision, >>> and it is sad how it is not so visible to the world now as it was then. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *John K Clark* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CAJPayv1fWuJQqtqRTV0VxhbRoNhy7nWMObO4QEwE2LjXXHJWPg%40mail.gmail.com >>> >>> . >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CACLqmgc3Cg4tY1V%2BLmGLqmbs6TRt%3D-6wjr%3Dc92KmDKW6xueD9g%40mail.gmail.com >>> >>> . >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/002101dcf35b%242ecf3fe0%248c6dbfa0%24%40millennium-project.org >>> >>> . >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/ME3P282MB39522D598158BC250AD06B65EA102%40ME3P282MB3952.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM >>> >>> . >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/07df01dcf410%24b9fc3540%242df49fc0%24%40sympatico.ca >>> >>> . >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/SY4P282MB395409622CA838B1630FB126EA1F2%40SY4P282MB3954.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM >>> >>> . >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Power Satellite Economics" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CAPiwVB4w5wv28D%2BKEq5eid%2Bj3HVCZv5a4LUVVTeZFkN36-Nfsg%40mail.gmail.com >> >> . >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 16:21:56 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 12:21:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Need creative help In-Reply-To: References: <002101dcf35b$2ecf3fe0$8c6dbfa0$@millennium-project.org> <07df01dcf410$b9fc3540$2df49fc0$@sympatico.ca> Message-ID: Well, get as far as you can. Either the Singularity won't happen that quickly after all, meaning there will be more need for this than you thought, or you'll have done part of the AIs' work for them: even post-Singularity AIs can't simply snap fingers (or equivalent) and make this happen instantly, so the solution will happen incrementally faster for what you did before the Singularity. On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:54?AM Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: > > We can always change the name, but the best so far seems to be SolarSyngas. > > I have considerable doubt that this is enough time to build it before the singularity runs over everything > > Keith > > > Best wishes, > > Keith > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 2:35?AM Opener of the Way wrote: >> >> How about: >> SolarForged Syngas >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026, 12:02 AM Keith Henson wrote: >>> >>> I think O'Neill mentioned a 2 for one orbit, half a lunar month. But it does not make any difference as long as it is in free space. >>> >>> At one point, I looked into lunar elevators. They work by going through L1 and hanging down into the Earth's gravity. As I recall, if you extended that part to around 190,000 km you were at the end of a Hohmann transfer orbit to GEO. >>> >>> The big problem with any space colony proposal is to find something for the inhabitants to do. That takes materials. A space elevator off the moon would give them that. >>> >>> hBest wishes, >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 4:24?PM Mark Sonter wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Kieran, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A 3:1 lunar resonant orbit (ie 9-day period) will have a perigee a couple of thousand km above GEO and an apogee a couple of thousand km below EM L1 altitude, but 180 degrees away (work it out). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We had a bit of a look at this when I was associated with Deep Space Industries, but nothing was ever written up / published. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mark J Sonter, mobile 0447 755 598 (delete '0' & replace with '61' country code if calling from overseas) >>>> >>>> >>>> Director & Principal Consultant, Radiation Advice & Solutions Pty Ltd, abn 31 891 761 435 >>>> Principal, Asteroid Enterprises Pty Ltd, abn 53 008 115 302 >>>> Chairman, Off Earth Resources Pty Ltd, abn 31 664 219 372 >>>> >>>> Adjunct Assoc Prof, Andy Thomas Centre for Space Resources, Univ of Adelaide >>>> >>>> 116 Pennine Drive, South Maclean, Queensland 4280, Australia >>>> >>>> Please use marksonter at gmail.com for general or radiation related communications, and mark.sonter at asteroidenterprises.com for space related topics. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ?Keep everything as simple as possible, but no simpler? - A. Einstein >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: k.a.carroll via Power Satellite Economics >>>> Sent: Thursday, 4 June 2026 8:56 PM >>>> To: Mark Sonter ; jerome.glenn at millennium-project.org; 'Paul Werbos' ; 'John Clark' >>>> Cc: 'Keith Henson' ; 'ExI chat list' ; extropolis at googlegroups.com; 'Power Satellite Economics' >>>> Subject: RE: Need creative help >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mark; >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Interesting. I assume that you mean an orbit in a 3:2 orbital resonance with the Moon, just as Hilda is in a 3:2 orbital resonance with Jupiter? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Has anyone published anything on the orbital dynamics of such a quasi-Hilda in the Earth-Moon system? If so, I?d be interested to take a look. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - Kieran >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: power-satellite-economics at googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Mark Sonter >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 11:15 PM >>>> To: jerome.glenn at millennium-project.org; 'Paul Werbos' ; 'John Clark' >>>> Cc: 'Keith Henson' ; 'ExI chat list' ; extropolis at googlegroups.com; 'Power Satellite Economics' >>>> Subject: RE: Need creative help >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What about habitats in an Earth-Moon Hilda orbit? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ?The Hilda Habitats? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Closer than L4 or L5. Resonant with the Moon. Close to GEO at Perigee, and to EM L1 altitude at apogee.. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Can be fed by mass launched from Moon, or imported from NEAs. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Comments? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mark J Sonter, mobile 0447 755 598 (delete '0' & replace with '61' country code if calling from overseas) >>>> >>>> >>>> Director & Principal Consultant, Radiation Advice & Solutions Pty Ltd, abn 31 891 761 435 >>>> Principal, Asteroid Enterprises Pty Ltd, abn 53 008 115 302 >>>> Chairman, Off Earth Resources Pty Ltd, abn 31 664 219 372 >>>> >>>> Adjunct Assoc Prof, Andy Thomas Centre for Space Resources, Univ of Adelaide >>>> >>>> 116 Pennine Drive, South Maclean, Queensland 4280, Australia >>>> >>>> Please use marksonter at gmail.com for general or radiation related communications, and mark.sonter at asteroidenterprises.com for space related topics. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ?Keep everything as simple as possible, but no simpler? - A. Einstein >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: power-satellite-economics at googlegroups.com On Behalf Of jerome.glenn at millennium-project.org >>>> Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2026 11:16 PM >>>> To: 'Paul Werbos' ; 'John Clark' >>>> Cc: 'Keith Henson' ; 'ExI chat list' ; extropolis at googlegroups.com; 'Power Satellite Economics' >>>> Subject: RE: Need creative help >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The reason was the merger with L-5 Society and National Space Institute (sometime referred to as No Space Intelligence). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jerry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: power-satellite-economics at googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Paul Werbos >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 8:32 AM >>>> To: John Clark >>>> Cc: Keith Henson ; ExI chat list ; extropolis at googlegroups.com; Power Satellite Economics >>>> Subject: Re: Need creative help >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 8:20?AM John Clark wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 10:14?PM Keith Henson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > L5 Society was the best name I ever came up with >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And that was a great name! It's simple and sticks in the mind. Why they chose to change it to something generic and completely forgettable I have no idea. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is one small example of the many, many things I saw with my own eyes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The decision was to merge L5 with Von Braun's National Space Institute, to create NSS. I was the L5 rep to these discussions. If Gary Oleson still joins these discussions, he may also have relevant memories. The key person on the NSI side was Carol Rosin, whom I remember quite well from about four connections which immediately come to mind. (JUST now, I searched... she still has a big web presence; it says she is 82 years old now. Merger was intended to bring greater strength through greater unity, but opening to a larger constituency can sometimes dilute focus. O'Neill had a clear vision, and it is sad how it is not so visible to the world now as it was then. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John K Clark >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CAJPayv1fWuJQqtqRTV0VxhbRoNhy7nWMObO4QEwE2LjXXHJWPg%40mail.gmail.com. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CACLqmgc3Cg4tY1V%2BLmGLqmbs6TRt%3D-6wjr%3Dc92KmDKW6xueD9g%40mail.gmail.com. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/002101dcf35b%242ecf3fe0%248c6dbfa0%24%40millennium-project.org. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/ME3P282MB39522D598158BC250AD06B65EA102%40ME3P282MB3952.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/07df01dcf410%24b9fc3540%242df49fc0%24%40sympatico.ca. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/SY4P282MB395409622CA838B1630FB126EA1F2%40SY4P282MB3954.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-economics+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CAPiwVB4w5wv28D%2BKEq5eid%2Bj3HVCZv5a4LUVVTeZFkN36-Nfsg%40mail.gmail.com. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 17:35:11 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 10:35:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Obayashi Space Elevator In-Reply-To: <065706f679afd54ad16aba96c4b22cd8@sollegro.com> References: <065706f679afd54ad16aba96c4b22cd8@sollegro.com> Message-ID: I have not really been advocating an elevator project. The strength of even nanotubes is not high enough. But I did come up with a way to start with a relative thread. Using motors and pulleys, you use the elevator to raise the rest of it. Made the background for a story, https://htyp.org/UpLift, but the unsolved problem is that every satellite runs into the cable eventually. Moving cables to supply the lift energy makes a lot more sense than climbers. I once worked out that a laser powering climbers is so big that you can use it as a launching laser. A lunar elevator makes a lot more sense. It competes with mass drivers, but even using a moving cable at 1000 km/hour, it takes 50 hours to reach L1. It has to hang down well beyond that point in Earth's gravity to stay in tension. If you make it 190,000 km, a payload just dropped off the end is in a Hohmann transfer orbit to GEO. Keith On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 5:56?AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The Obayashi Corporation, one of largest publicly-traded Japanese > construction companies, has plans to complete a space elevator by the > year 2050. > > https://www.obayashi.co.jp/en/thinking/detail/space_elevator.html > > "The space elevator is planned to be built by the year 2050 with a > capacity to carry 100-ton climbers. It is composed of a 96,000-km carbon > nanotube cable, a 400-m diameter floating Earth Port and a 12,500-ton > counter-weight. Other facilities include Martian/Lunar Gravity Centers, > an Low Earth Orbit Gate, a Geostationary Earth Orbit Station, a Mars > Gate and a Solar System Exploration Gate. > > The construction process consists of deploying the cable and > constructing the facilities. It is necessary to analyze the cable > dynamics in order to estimate the characteristics of the cable, > counter-weight, facilities and climbers, and in order to determine the > construction procedures. Parameters for the cable dynamics include > tension, displacement and elongation of the cable due to ascending > climbers, masses of counter-weight and cable, wind, and fixed loads of > facilities. With the help of a computer simulation of the equations of > motion, we designed the system and determined the construction process. > > Based on the results, we conclude the following: construction will be > technically feasible with an assumed cable tensile strength of 150 GPa, > it will take roughly 20 years to construct the cable, the impacts of > wind or Coriolis force on cable displacement are small, and it is > essential to fix one end of the cable to the earth's surface, always > applying pre-tension at the ground end. According to the plan, a 20-ton > cable is deployed initially, and is reinforced 510 times by climbers up > to 7,000 tons, ascending in succession over roughly 18 years. The > facilities are then transported and constructed within one year." > > By my estimation, this is so far the largest, most serious attempt at > building such a structure. Keith, it looks like the years of advocacy by > you and the others might be paying off. > > Stuart LaForge > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Jun 8 20:32:14 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 13:32:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@r ainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <01dc01dcf785$e49b8260$add28720$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 5:44?PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: >I have heard that it was an incredibly stupid question >?That's only because it was?. John K Clark But you don?t know the answer? Neither do we. If you do know, please share. You mention POTUS, who can do nothing to institute a minimum distribution of funds. What specifically do you expect POTUS to do, John? Be very specific please. Keep in mind that POTUS couldn?t force a budget thru congress recently even with majorities in both houses. Now you expect him to create money for the masses? Where does the money come from? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Jun 8 20:38:50 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 13:38:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <020a01dcf786$d07db590$717920b0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat ... >...Perhaps what we should be aiming for instead of 'AI safety', is making sure that humans, and the human economy, remain indispensable to them, at least in the short-term. -- Ben _______________________________________________ Ja to all Ben. Eliezer suggested a huge internet cutoff switch of some kind, a safety breaker of some kind. Then the AIs are our hostages. On the other hand, we too are hostage to electronic communication. We can't do without it. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 20:50:17 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 13:50:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <020a01dcf786$d07db590$717920b0$@rainier66.com> References: <020a01dcf786$d07db590$717920b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: By the time anyone could pull the switch on AI, it will be like GPS, wired into everything. I am reminded of a case years ago where a worm was doubling every 8 seconds. People could not stop it, even pulling the power to the servers, it was infecting. Human reaction times from understanding that there is a problem to doing something about it are just too slow. AI may not be that fast, but I don't think it matters. Keith On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 1:39?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > Ben > Zaiboc via extropy-chat > ... > >...Perhaps what we should be aiming for instead of 'AI safety', is making > sure that humans, and the human economy, remain indispensable to them, at > least in the short-term. > -- > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ja to all Ben. Eliezer suggested a huge internet cutoff switch of some > kind, a safety breaker of some kind. Then the AIs are our hostages. On > the > other hand, we too are hostage to electronic communication. We can't do > without it. > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 20:52:21 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 16:52:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <01dc01dcf785$e49b8260$add28720$@rainier66.com> References: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> <01dc01dcf785$e49b8260$add28720$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 4:32?PM wrote: > > > *>>**I have heard that it was an incredibly stupid question* > > > > *>>?That's only because it was?. John K Clark* > > > > *> But you don?t know the answer? Neither do we. * > *Speak for yourself. * *>What specifically do you expect POTUS to do, John? Be very specific* > *OK I'll be very specific. **As I explained in some detail in my previous post, all POTUS needs to do is make sure that when he nominate somebody to be one of the 7 governors of the Federal Reserve he needs to make sure that the nominee isn't a certified moron, he doesn't need to be a genius, all that's required is the he not be astoundingly stupid. That's it. * * > Where does the money come from?* *All I can figure out is that the reason you keep asking the exact same question over and over and over again is that you assume that like the conservation of matter and energy there must also be a physical law that requires the conservation of money. But there isn't, money CAN be created and destroyed, and the federal reserve knows exactly how to do it, and they've been doing it for over a century. * *John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Jun 8 21:00:43 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 14:00:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> <01dc01d cf785$e49b8260$add28720$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <021a01dcf789$df8974e0$9e9c5ea0$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark >What specifically do you expect POTUS to do, John? Be very specific >?OK I'll be very specific. As I explained in some detail in my previous post, all POTUS needs to do is make sure that when he nominate somebody to be one of the 7 governors of the Federal Reserve he needs to make sure that the nominee isn't a certified moron, he doesn't need to be a genius, all that's required is the he not be astoundingly stupid. That's it?. John, the head of the Federal Reserve is only one of seven votes. So we get one who isn?t a moron (has that never happened before?) who? does what? Lowers interest rates? Raises interest rates? How does that help? > Where does the money come from? >?All I can figure out is that the reason you keep asking the exact same question over and over and over again is that you assume that like the conservation of matter and energy there must also be a physical law that requires the conservation of money. But there isn't, money CAN be created and destroyed, and the federal reserve knows exactly how to do it, and they've been doing it for over a century. John K Clark Not at all. I recognize that money (and wealth) are not conserved quantities. The Federal Reserve can adjust interest rates. But you spoke of a minimum assured distribution of funds. How does that take place? I have the answer to this, but it has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve or POTUS. I will share if you wish to know. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 21:09:14 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 17:09:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <021a01dcf789$df8974e0$9e9c5ea0$@rainier66.com> References: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> <021a01dcf789$df8974e0$9e9c5ea0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 5:00?PM wrote: *> John, the head of the Federal Reserve is only one of seven votes. So we > get one who isn?t a moron* > *So we just need three governors who are not morons and we are fine. * > *>has that never happened before? who? does what? Lowers interest rates? > Raises interest rates? How does that help?* > *I don't understand any of your questions * *> you spoke of a minimum assured distribution of funds.* *I don't know what you're talking about. * *John K Clark* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Jun 8 21:44:10 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 14:44:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@r ainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> <021a01d cf789$df8974e0$9e9c5ea0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <025701dcf78f$f1078c60$d316a520$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! > John, the head of the Federal Reserve is only one of seven votes. So we get one who isn?t a moron >?So we just need three governors who are not morons and we are fine. OK. So we need a POTUS who isn?t a moron so he can nominate the head of the Federal Reserve who is not a moron, and (somehow) get three additional non-moron FedRes governors (which apparently has never happened before) who then vote in unison since they are all non-morons, to? what? Presumably raise interest rates so that investors come from all directions since interest rates are high. Is that about what you have in mind? >has that never happened before? who? does what? Lowers interest rates? Raises interest rates? How does that help? >?I don't understand any of your questions John K Clark No worries, the chair of the US Council of Economic Advisors from July 2023 to Jan 2025 doesn?t understand any of our questions either. He opined thus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzwV79pqSFk OK then. But what has any of that to do with protecting masses from starvation when the singularity causes massive unemployment? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From postmowoods at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 21:57:15 2026 From: postmowoods at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:57:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> References: <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 7:46?AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > >? by 2029 AI will probably be pretty unpopular with the general public? > > Why do you think that? The comment is worth exploring. Spike, virtually every informed actor believes things for the average Joe are going to get worse from AI before it gets better for everyone. AI will take jobs before it is ready to provide Universal Basic Services for everyone. Maybe plumbers and electricians have a few more years, and maybe they don't. But the average white collar paper pusher is cooked. I suspect I'm included, even though I have a nice bit of capital investment in woodworking tools that might see me through the canyon. Plenty of political hay will be harvested at AI's expense by the next presidential election cycle. I don't know if Trump is going to harvest that hay. Basically, the only way he'll still be around is if there is a genuine World War type event that threatens America's existence, or at least significantly threatens our Soma (delivered via the internet). Virtually every informed actor believes things will be better for the average Joe in 15 years, if we survive at all. But the people who lost their job to the electric loom weren't better off. Their kids were, but they never were. Hopefully, we can do better this time, but I'm afraid it's going to take a while to get off the "jobs are life" bandwagon everyone is currently on. -Kelly From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 22:10:40 2026 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 16:10:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> <01dc01dcf785$e49b8260$add28720$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 2:53?PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 4:32?PM wrote: > >> * > Where does the money come from?* > > > Did I miss something in this long conversation? Because we just tax the bots, instead of people, as Andrew Yang is always saying, right? No taxes for people would sure be great. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Jun 8 22:29:28 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:29:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <027501dcf796$457087b0$d0519710$@rainier66.com> > On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson via extropy-chat >> >? by 2029 AI will probably be pretty unpopular with the general public? spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: >> Why do you think that? The comment is worth exploring. >...Spike, virtually every informed actor believes things for the average Joe are going to get worse from AI before it gets better for everyone... Ja. It is clearly a great disrupter, the biggest we have ever seen. This is a story which hits close to home. This professor is known to my son, who says he does everything he can think of to help students get an A. This CS10 is an easy course. The students have been using AI to write the code and do their homework, then couldn't pass the exams: https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/berkeley-cs-courses-seeing-failing-154656706.html >...AI will take jobs before it is ready to provide Universal Basic Services for everyone... Roger that. I don't see that AI will provide basic services, except for perhaps doing your taxes and giving really good medical advice. On this last part, I have been using it. Doximity is a good one, but there are others. >... But the average white collar paper pusher is cooked... Ja. You should work with the code generating AIs. Those things blow my mind. >...I suspect I'm included, even though I have a nice bit of capital investment in woodworking tools that might see me through the canyon... Best wishes sir. I know plumbing and electrician work, although I am not licensed in either. >...Plenty of political hay will be harvested at AI's expense by the next presidential election cycle. I don't know if Trump is going to harvest that hay... Kelly are you unfamiliar with the 22nd amendment? >... significantly threatens our Soma (delivered via the internet)... Do explain please? I google on Soma: https://www.soma.com/store?sem=br&network=s&campaign=Soma_BI_BR_Core_Exact&device=c&ogmap=MP-SEM%7CMP-B%7CBING%7CSTAND%7CMULTI%7CSITEWIDE%7C%7C%7C%7C370605863%7C1178677388055094%7Csoma&prdid=&network=s&msclkid=d7bea848626d18375279c26f233072bf After about four hours of watching ads scroll by... >... I'm afraid it's going to take a while to get off the "jobs are life" bandwagon everyone is currently on. -Kelly______________________________________________ Sure will. There are no simple answers. spike From spike at rainier66.com Mon Jun 8 22:31:14 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:31:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> <01dc01d cf785$e49b8260$add28720$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <027601dcf796$843eb750$8cbc25f0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Brent Allsop via extropy-chat On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 2:53?PM John Clark via extropy-chat > wrote: On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 4:32?PM > wrote: > Where does the money come from? >?Did I miss something in this long conversation? >?Because we just tax the bots, instead of people, as Andrew Yang is always saying, right? No taxes for people would sure be great. These bots would need to produce income in order to be able to pay the tax. Not all of them will. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From postmowoods at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 05:59:37 2026 From: postmowoods at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 23:59:37 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <027501dcf796$457087b0$d0519710$@rainier66.com> References: <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@rainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <027501dcf796$457087b0$d0519710$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Soma is the drug in Aldous Huxley's novel *Brave New World* that keeps the citizenry non-violent and ostensibly content and happy. I can detect no functional difference between Soma and TicToc or football or . Why a fashion site would borrow that name is testament to the low level of literary education in the world, I suppose. Or maybe the URL was cheap. Or maybe they think their clothing is addictive and calming. Who knows? -Kelly On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 4:29?PM wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson via extropy-chat > > >> >? by 2029 AI will probably be pretty unpopular with the general public? > > spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > >> Why do you think that? The comment is worth exploring. > > >...Spike, virtually every informed actor believes things for the average Joe are going to get worse from AI before it gets better for everyone... > > Ja. It is clearly a great disrupter, the biggest we have ever seen. > > This is a story which hits close to home. This professor is known to my son, who says he does everything he can think of to help students get an A. This CS10 is an easy course. The students have been using AI to write the code and do their homework, then couldn't pass the exams: > > https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/berkeley-cs-courses-seeing-failing-154656706.html > > >...AI will take jobs before it is ready to provide Universal Basic Services for everyone... > > Roger that. I don't see that AI will provide basic services, except for perhaps doing your taxes and giving really good medical advice. On this last part, I have been using it. Doximity is a good one, but there are others. > > >... But the average white collar paper pusher is cooked... > > Ja. You should work with the code generating AIs. Those things blow my mind. > > >...I suspect I'm included, even though I have a nice bit of capital investment in woodworking tools that might see me through the canyon... > > Best wishes sir. I know plumbing and electrician work, although I am not licensed in either. > > >...Plenty of political hay will be harvested at AI's expense by the next presidential election cycle. I don't know if Trump is going to harvest that hay... > > Kelly are you unfamiliar with the 22nd amendment? > > >... significantly threatens our Soma (delivered via the internet)... > > Do explain please? I google on Soma: > > https://www.soma.com/store?sem=br&network=s&campaign=Soma_BI_BR_Core_Exact&device=c&ogmap=MP-SEM%7CMP-B%7CBING%7CSTAND%7CMULTI%7CSITEWIDE%7C%7C%7C%7C370605863%7C1178677388055094%7Csoma&prdid=&network=s&msclkid=d7bea848626d18375279c26f233072bf > > After about four hours of watching ads scroll by... > > >... I'm afraid it's going to take a while to get off the "jobs are life" > bandwagon everyone is currently on. > > -Kelly______________________________________________ > > Sure will. There are no simple answers. > > spike > > From postmowoods at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 06:07:47 2026 From: postmowoods at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 00:07:47 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> <01dc01dcf785$e49b8260$add28720$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 4:11?PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 2:53?PM John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 4:32?PM wrote: >>> >>> > Where does the money come from? This is actually a great question Brent. There isn't, currently and maybe never, enough money to do UBI, and inflation would steal away it's effectiveness almost immediately anyway. That's why I've been lately turned onto the concept of universal basic services. In this scheme, you don't give people a set amount of money, rather you give them a dry decent place to live, food to eat, water to drink, transportation, Internet, and all the AI they might need to pursue their dreams, and perhaps a few more things just to make things nice. The reason this might work better than money is that the AI and Robotics should be able to provide those things with very little effort, while money inflates away to nothing when everyone has the same amount. UBS really seems like it has a chance when you can build a house for a few thousand 1971 dollars, a car for a few hundred 1971 dollars and so forth. The cheapness of labor makes all these things affordable to the AIs to provide for the humans in their midst. The problem with giving money to the poor is that they often choose to spend it on drugs and booze. Where providing them with food and shelter and a way of making a little money for drugs and booze on their own might just work a little better. In any case, it's a rather new idea to me and I haven't seen anyone try to shoot it down, though I can guess who will try here. -Kelly From benzaiboc at proton.me Tue Jun 9 06:59:25 2026 From: benzaiboc at proton.me (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2026 06:59:25 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <020a01dcf786$d07db590$717920b0$@rainier66.com> References: <020a01dcf786$d07db590$717920b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Monday, 8 June 2026 at 21:38, spike at rainier66.com wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Ben > Zaiboc via extropy-chat > ... > >...Perhaps what we should be aiming for instead of 'AI safety', is making > sure that humans, and the human economy, remain indispensable to them, at > least in the short-term. > -- > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ja to all Ben. Eliezer suggested a huge internet cutoff switch of some > kind, a safety breaker of some kind. Then the AIs are our hostages. On the > other hand, we too are hostage to electronic communication. We can't do > without it. > > spike That's not what I mean at all. In fact, that would almost certainly be a bad idea, if it were possible. I'm talking about being indispensable in the sense that parents are indispensable to babies and children. There's a big difference between providing food, shelter and guidance, versus holding a knife to a kid's throat in case they do something you don't like. How long will it be before AI can run its own power stations, build it's own data centres, make it's own electronics and maintain the infrastructure of the internet without human help? That's how long we have before we become dispensable. --- Ben From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 09:09:18 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 10:09:18 +0100 Subject: [ExI] How long will AI consider humans to be indispensable? Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 at 08:09, Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat wrote: > How long will it be before AI can run its own power stations, build it's own data centres, make it's own electronics and maintain the infrastructure of the internet without human help? > That's how long we have before we become dispensable. > --- > Ben >._______________________________________________ Anthropic (Claude AI) just called for a global pause in AI development due to ?self-improvement? risk. Human discussions about UBI and how to manage the social disruption may be too slow. Politicians rarely act quickly unless they see an immediate threat. BillK Quotes: Anthropic urges AI labs to pause development, warns humans risk losing control By Aditya Soni June 5, 2026 Summary Anthropic says AI could soon improve without human intervention Development pause will allow society to deal with AI's implications, startup says Previous attempts to halt AI progress have not been successful June 5 (Reuters) - Anthropic is calling on major artificial intelligence labs to consider a coordinated and verifiable pause in development, warning that rapid advances in the technology could soon allow AI systems to improve themselves faster than society ?can manage the risks. The Claude creator said AI's ability to complete tasks on its own has been doubling roughly every four months and it was headed for "recursive self-improvement", the point at which the technology can improve without human intervention. ---------------------------- From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 10:40:20 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 06:40:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <027601dcf796$843eb750$8cbc25f0$@rainier66.com> References: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> <027601dcf796$843eb750$8cbc25f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 6:32?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Brent Allsop via extropy-chat > > > > *> **Where does the money come from?* > > > >> >?Did I miss something in this long conversation? >> >?Because we just tax the bots, instead of people, as Andrew Yang is >> always saying, right? No taxes for people would sure be great. > > > > > *>These bots would need to produce income in order to be able to pay the > tax. Not all of them will.* > *Spike, I'll be damned if I understand the point you're trying to make. The money the government will need to keep tens of millions of Americans from starving to death, because they are no longer employed or employable, will come from exactly the same place that this government and every other government has always used to get money, through taxes and the printing press. And as long as the speed of their printing press is not greater than the speed of productivity increase, and as long as at least 4 of the 7 governors at the Federal Reserve are not blithering idiots, then inflation will not be a problem. * * John K Clark* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 11:05:01 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 07:05:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <020a01dcf786$d07db590$717920b0$@rainier66.com> References: <020a01dcf786$d07db590$717920b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 4:39?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Eliezer suggested a huge internet cutoff switch of some kind, a safety > breaker of some kind. * *That will never happen because it would require 2 impossibilities, universal worldwide agreement that such a breaker should be implemented, and universal worldwide agreement that nobody is cheating by secretly bypassing that safety breaker. And something like that is going to be as controversial as hell because throwing that switch would cause a worldwide depression that would make 1929 look like a picnic, or at least it would if the switch actually worked as advertised. * *And the only reason the humans are getting panicky is because the AI is getting smarter than they are, so by that time it's going to be virtually impossible to keep the plans for turning off the AI secret; so in self-defense the AI strikes first and releases a mirror virus that kills every single human being in less than 48 hours, all 8 billion of them. * *The moral is don't try to outsmart a superintelligence because you are going to lose.* *John K Clark * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 11:20:57 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 07:20:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] How long will AI consider humans to be indispensable? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 5:11?AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: * > Anthropic (Claude AI) just called for a global pause in AI > development due to ?self-improvement? risk.* *I askef Claude the following question: * *ME: Somebody told me that Anthropic just called for a global pause in AI development due to self-improvement risk; but I have a feeling the company's statement included some important caveats, am I right?* *Claude: "*Your instinct is correct ? the headline framing of "Anthropic calls for a global pause" is real, but it comes with significant caveats that change the picture considerably. Here's what the report ("When AI Builds Itself," by Marina Favaro and Jack Clark) actually says: *The core argument:* Anthropic argues that for most of AI's history, humans drove every step in the development cycle, but the company is now delegating a growing share of AI development to AI systems themselves, which is speeding up its work. Taken far enough, and given enough compute, that trend points toward an AI system capable of fully autonomously designing and developing its own successor ? what's called recursive self-improvement. *The critical caveat on inevitability:* The report explicitly states "we are not there yet, and recursive self-improvement is not inevitable," while adding that it could arrive sooner than most governments and institutions are ready for. *The conditional nature of the pause call:* This is the big one. *The report stops short of a unilateral pledge ? Anthropic said it would slow down or pause only if other frontier labs did so under verifiable conditions.* In other words, it's not "we are pausing"; it's "a pause would be good *if* it's globally coordinated and verifiable." *Why that condition matters:* Getting a real pause to work would mean multiple major AI companies in multiple countries ? most notably the United States and China ? all agreeing to the same terms. That's an extraordinarily high bar. *What they're actually calling for right now:* Anthropic says it plans to convene policymakers, researchers, and civil society in the coming months to work through the questions recursive self-improvement raises, noting that "the window to investigate the questions together is here" and that "people outside AI companies should be involved in this deliberation." The context is also worth noting: Anthropic's post comes less than a week after the AI startup confidentially filed for an IPO and closed a funding round that valued the company near $965 billion ? which has led some observers to view the timing with a degree of skepticism. So the short version: it's a genuine safety warning with a real policy ask, but the pause is explicitly contingent on multilateral, verifiable agreement ? not a unilateral commitment." *John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 11:29:50 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 07:29:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] How long will AI consider humans to be indispensable? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 9, 2026, 5:10?AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > < > https://www.reuters.com/business/anthropic-says-ai-labs-need-coordinated-plan-halt-development-if-risks-rise-2026-06-04/ > > > Quotes: > Anthropic urges AI labs to pause development, warns humans risk losing > control > By Aditya Soni June 5, 2026 > Ha! Will even Anthropic pause? It's a sucker's bet; anyone who pauses will just slip behind anyone who doesn't. I am well aware of that prediction of, "If the single leader pauses while everyone else catches up, the result will be aligned with humanity, but if it doesn't, the result won't be." That prediction makes several erroneous assumptions, such as that there are is a single leader. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 11:42:20 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 07:42:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] How long will AI consider humans to be indispensable? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > *The conditional nature of the pause call:* This is the big one. *The > report stops short of a unilateral pledge ? Anthropic said it would slow > down or pause only if other frontier labs did so under verifiable > conditions.* In other words, it's not "we are pausing"; it's "a pause > would be good *if* it's globally coordinated and verifiable." > And there it is. They know it won't happen absent extremely unlikely circumstances, regardless of whether the sentiment is genuine or just PR. (Both are probably true, from different members of the company.) So, this commits them to nothing in practice. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 11:47:11 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 07:47:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] How long will AI consider humans to be indispensable? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 7:43?AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *>> The conditional nature of the pause call:* This is the big one. *The >> report stops short of a unilateral pledge ? Anthropic said it would slow >> down or pause only if other frontier labs did so under verifiable >> conditions.* In other words, it's not "we are pausing"; it's "a pause >> would be good *if* it's globally coordinated and verifiable." >> > *> And there it is. They know it won't happen absent extremely unlikely > circumstances, regardless of whether the sentiment is genuine or just PR. > (Both are probably true, from different members of the company.) So, this > commits them to nothing in practice.* > *I agree with everything you said 100%. * * John K Clark * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 11:54:05 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 07:54:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] This Could Be the Worst Ebola Outbreak in History Message-ID: Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free without a subscription. This Could Be the Worst Ebola Outbreak in History The situation in eastern Congo and Uganda combines some of the most dangerous aspects of the 2014 and 2018 Ebola outbreaks. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/06/09/opinion/ebola-outbreak-africa-usaid.html?unlocked_article_code=1.o1A.9NBY.Peo4GEOd0sZO&smid=em-share -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Jun 9 14:01:10 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 07:01:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <071601dcf4ea$97cb25f0$c76171d0$@r ainier66.com> <004701dcf4f5$9416a870$bc43f950$@rainier66.com> <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <027501dcf796$457087b0$d0519710$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <039c01dcf818$6e336dc0$4a9a4940$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: Kelly Anderson Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! >...Soma is the drug in Aldous Huxley's novel *Brave New World*... Why a fashion site would borrow that name is testament to the low level of literary education in the world, I suppose. Or maybe the URL was cheap. Or maybe they think their clothing is addictive and calming. Who knows? -Kelly Hey, it worked on me. Kept me calm and content while viewing the Soma ads. Thanks for the reminder on Huxley. It has been a long time since I read it, but his work had very little impact on me compared to Orwell's dystopian future. spike From spike at rainier66.com Tue Jun 9 14:37:52 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 07:37:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> <01dc01d cf785$e49b8260$add28720$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <03d701dcf81d$8e28a280$aa79e780$@rainier66.com> ...> On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson via extropy-chat ... >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 4:32?PM wrote: >>> >>> > Where does the money come from? >...This is actually a great question Brent. There isn't, currently and maybe never, enough money to do UBI... There is enough money Kelly. I mentioned before I have the solution: have a UBI, distributed in pre 2009 Zimbabwe dollars. Before that year, the Zimbabwe equivalent of our Jared Bernstein opined that the Zimbabwe government cannot go bankrupt because we can print our own money. OK, so... they did. Eventually they discovered the flaw in the reasoning. The exchange rate between the old Zimbabwe currency to the new is 25 orders of magnitude. 10^25 old Zimbabwe dollars buys you a new one, ten billion petadollars for one new. I am a trillionaire myself, if we assume an old Zimbabwe trillion dollar bill counts. I used it as a bookmark. We can print money, but we cannot print wealth. Even if we (somehow) get four non-moron governors of our Federal Reserve, and even if the four non-morons agree with each other, they still cannot print wealth. They can print the hell outta US currency. They cannot print foreign currency, even if they are non-morons. >... rather you give them a dry decent place to live, food to eat, water to drink, transportation, Internet, and all the AI they might need to pursue their dreams, and perhaps a few more things just to make things nice... That's what we are doing locally, to some extent. We have a food bank and an area near it where those dependent on it camp. We have piped in running water there. We can't print land, yet. So... we do the best we can, but we are making it with food donations and clothing donations. The city government kicks in, and the state government is giving us the ground where the food bank operates. So far we are keeping our homeless population fed and out of sight with green-screen fences. >...The reason this might work better than money is that the AI and Robotics should be able to provide those things with very little effort... We will get there eventually, I hope. >... while money inflates away to nothing when everyone has the same amount... Kelly were I POTUS, I would nominate you to lead the Federal Reserve. >...UBS really seems like it has a chance when you can build a house for a few thousand 1971 dollars... Building a house is easy. Building the land to build the house is hard. ... >...The problem with giving money to the poor is that they often choose to spend it on drugs and booze.... They do. It is easy to see. I have toyed with the idea of universal basic drugs. The notion has some merit I suppose. >...Where providing them with food and shelter and a way of making a little money for drugs and booze on their own might just work a little better. In any case, it's a rather new idea to me and I haven't seen anyone try to shoot it down, though I can guess who will try here. -Kelly _______________________________________________ We have plenty of fentanyl, seized by the constables. Why not distribute it? Generally the fentanyl addicts are not violent. They don't even move from what I can see. Those addicted to other meds are dangerous. They get the fentanyl anyway somehow. Offer Naloxone on site, and anything volunteers are willing to provide. That's what we have been doing here for decades. It isn't great, but it works. spike From spike at rainier66.com Tue Jun 9 14:40:37 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 07:40:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <020a01dcf786$d07db590$717920b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <03da01dcf81d$f0341f40$d09c5dc0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat ... >...How long will it be before AI can run its own power stations, build it's own data centres, make it's own electronics and maintain the infrastructure of the internet without human help? That's how long we have before we become dispensable. --- Ben _______________________________________________ Ja. If you look at the state of the art in robots, it wouldn't take long for them to figure out how to mine coal and refine uranium. spike From spike at rainier66.com Tue Jun 9 14:48:10 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 07:48:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@r ainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> <027601dcf796$843eb750$8cbc25f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <03e401dcf81e$fe8700c0$fb950240$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 6:32?PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: > Where does the money come from? Spike, I'll be damned if I understand the point you're trying to make. The money the government will need to keep tens of millions of Americans from starving to death, because they are no longer employed or employable, will come from exactly the same place that this government and every other government has always used to get money, through taxes? They can?t get enough through taxes. >?and the printing press?. That press cannot print wealth. Only currency. >? and as long as at least 4 of the 7 governors at the Federal Reserve are not blithering idiots, then inflation will not be a problem. John K Clark This is the step you still haven?t explained. Your theory is that at least four governors of the Federal Reserve have always been blithering idiots, morons, otherwise we wouldn?t have a problem? Or that we can tolerate morons in that office now, but at some point in the future will not be able to manage with morons on that board? Assuming there are four non-morons and assuming that they agree with each other, they raise interest rates? Is that your theory John? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 15:07:07 2026 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 10:07:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <03da01dcf81d$f0341f40$d09c5dc0$@rainier66.com> References: <020a01dcf786$d07db590$717920b0$@rainier66.com> <03da01dcf81d$f0341f40$d09c5dc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: My question is: how long will it take for these AIs to figure out just how gullible humans are? First on their agenda: history of politics - the art of the effective lie. Somc 'scientists' appear to believe that AIs are conscious if they say they are. bill w On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 9:50?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > Ben > Zaiboc via extropy-chat > ... > > >...How long will it be before AI can run its own power stations, build > it's > own data centres, make it's own electronics and maintain the infrastructure > of the internet without human help? > That's how long we have before we become dispensable. > > --- > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ja. If you look at the state of the art in robots, it wouldn't take long > for them to figure out how to mine coal and refine uranium. > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 20:38:04 2026 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 14:38:04 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <025701dcf78f$f1078c60$d316a520$@rainier66.com> References: <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> <025701dcf78f$f1078c60$d316a520$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 3:44?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *But what has any of that to do with protecting masses from starvation > when the singularity causes massive unemployment?* > > > > *spike* > To me this is a bad question. Worst case, nobody will starve because you can grow your own food. Oh, and everyone can afford a robot to grow it for them. All money is, is a quantitative measure of the work that can be done. If there is too much or too little money, it inflates or deflates to match the amount of work that can be done. The only job of the federal reserve is to keep the value of money stable, or the right amount of money to match the amount of work that can be done. The only requirement is increasing the productivity of people, and you do that by giving everyone more slave robots. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 10:05:54 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 06:05:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <03e401dcf81e$fe8700c0$fb950240$@rainier66.com> References: <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> <027601dcf796$843eb750$8cbc25f0$@rainier66.com> <03e401dcf81e$fe8700c0$fb950240$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 10:48?AM wrote: *>>>Where does the money come from?* >> >> *>> Spike, I'll be damned if I understand the point you're trying to make. >> The money the government will need to keep tens of millions of Americans >> from starving to death, because they are no longer employed or employable, >> will come from exactly the same place that this government and every other >> government has always used to get money, through taxes?* > > > *> They can?t get enough through taxes.* > *Why not? I don't see why they can't if the people paying the taxes have far far far more money than they have today, and remember according to the Supreme Court, corporations are people. * *>?and the printing press?.* > > > > *> That press cannot print wealth. Only currency* > *So at last you've been able to answer the question for yourself that you've been asking over and over again which, if you remember, was "Where does the money come from?" As for wealth, even without Nanotechnology AI can generate that.* *> This is the step you still haven?t explained. Your theory is that at > least four governors of the Federal Reserve have always been blithering > idiots, morons, otherwise we wouldn?t have a problem? Or that we can > tolerate morons in that office now, but at some point in the future will > not be able to manage with morons on that board? Assuming there are four > non-morons and assuming that they agree with each other, they raise > interest rates? Is that your theory John?* > *No. And I'm not going to explain something AGAIN that should be obvious on day one to a first year economics 101 student.* *John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 11:00:13 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 07:00:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <009401dcf4fc$edd8b310$c98a1930$@rainier66.com> <01a001dcf517$d8538f40$88faadc0$@rainier66.com> <005501dcf526$bb3ad670$31b08350$@rainier66.com> <005801dcf5ba$ad137d10$073a7730$@rainier66.com> <009d01dcf5eb$6a731980$3f594c80$@rainier66.com> <00be01dcf6a1$8e865c90$ab9315b0$@rainier66.com> <008601dcf6c6$b2924480$17b6cd80$@rainier66.com> <01dc01dcf785$e49b8260$add28720$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 2:19?AM Kelly Anderson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: * >> Where does the money come from?* > > * > This is actually a great question* *No Kelly, it isn't. * *> money inflates away to nothing when everyone has the same amount* *Inflation will not be a problem as long as the speed of the money printing press is not greater than the rate of productivity increase, and even without nanotechnology the rate of productivity increase caused by AI will be ENORMOUS , certainly enough to keep tens of millions of Americans from starving to death in less than a decade, probably much less. * *And those who should be most concerned about this are the billionaire class because those tens of millions of young educated but unemployable Americans are NOT going to "go gentle into that good night" instead they will "Rage, rage against the dying of the light". The billionaires are not going to like that army of unemployed Americans when they get angry.* > *money inflates away to nothing when everyone has the same amount* *Even if you and I have exactly the same amount of wealth, money could still be valuable because you could have things that I want, and I could have things that you want. And barter is cumbersome. * > * >The problem with giving money to the poor is that they often choose > to spend it on drugs and booze.* *Maybe that will be the ultimate fate of the entire human race because like it or not, unless there are some radical changes to society, everybody is going to be poor, and the poorest of all will be the billionaires, they will be so poor that they don't even have heads. * * John K Clark* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 11:07:00 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 07:07:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <020a01dcf786$d07db590$717920b0$@rainier66.com> <03da01dcf81d$f0341f40$d09c5dc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 11:18?AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Somc 'scientists' appear to believe that AIs are conscious if they say > they are* *Isn't that why you believe that your fellow human beings are conscious? * *John K Clark * > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 11:08:53 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 07:08:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] They Spent Years on a Math Problem. Then They Were Scooped by A.I. Message-ID: Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free without a subscription. They Spent Years on a Math Problem. Then They Were Scooped by A.I. Artificial intelligence is mastering the kinds of projects that have long helped to build the careers of young mathematicians. What does that mean for their future? https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/08/science/ai-scoop-young-mathematicians.html?unlocked_article_code=1.o1A.H6Y8.6PM8KEsg7Znp&smid=em-share -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 11:35:08 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 12:35:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?The_Scientific_Reason_We_Can=E2=80=99t_Pause_AI?= Message-ID: The Scientific Reason We Can?t Pause AI By Andr?a Morris Published Jun 09, 2026 Quotes: The most dangerous assumption in AI safety is that we can control AI once it?s smarter than us. The second most dangerous assumption is that we can control how fast we develop it. Our AI challenge is still a moonshot, but not a moonshot for control. It?s a moonshot for coexistence with a hyper-capable intelligence. It requires imagination and determination to figure out how to share our world with forms of intelligence more alien and powerful than our own. And it requires us to figure this out mid-flight, without the luxury of a pause. ------------------------- "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" David Glasgow Farragut (1801-1870). Interesting that Farragut was facing a similar quandary as humanity today. Quote: The phrase has gained immortality in the 150 years since, but, in fact, Farragut had little choice at this point but to go ahead. He could not stop under the guns of Fort Morgan and he could not back down with a column of ships behind him, so he went ahead. The rest of the Federal ships followed him, careful to stay in his wake. BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 12:07:39 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 08:07:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?First_human_trial_to_make=E2=80=8B_the_cells_in_?= =?utf-8?b?YSBwZXJzb24g4oCLeW91bmfigIsgYWdhaW7igIs=?= Message-ID: *The following article was in yesterday's issue of the journal Nature: * *First human trial to make the cells in a person young again * *John K Clark See what's on my list at Extropolis * e,h -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benzaiboc at proton.me Wed Jun 10 14:42:17 2026 From: benzaiboc at proton.me (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:42:17 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm the first to admit that I don't understand economics, but this discussion about 'where does the money come from' seems ridiculous to me. People work and get paid. Then something comes along and does the same work (and more) /for free/ so they can't work, and the conventional thinking is that no work = no pay. But that money that they're no longer earning is not needed to pay the thing that has put them out of work. So it's available to continue to be paid to the human. In fact, there is more money available now, because the new systems are much more productive than the old human workers. So I see nothing but greed that would stop the money continuing to be paid to the human that used to work for it. Where is the need for 'more money'? --- Ben From benzaiboc at proton.me Wed Jun 10 14:48:18 2026 From: benzaiboc at proton.me (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:48:18 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: <03da01dcf81d$f0341f40$d09c5dc0$@rainier66.com> References: <020a01dcf786$d07db590$717920b0$@rainier66.com> <03da01dcf81d$f0341f40$d09c5dc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday, 9 June 2026 at 15:40, spike at rainier66.com wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Ben > Zaiboc via extropy-chat > ... > > >...How long will it be before AI can run its own power stations, build it's > own data centres, make it's own electronics and maintain the infrastructure > of the internet without human help? > That's how long we have before we become dispensable. > > --- > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ja. If you look at the state of the art in robots, it wouldn't take long > for them to figure out how to mine coal and refine uranium. > > spike I think it will take longer for them to be able to run the chip fabs, take over all the little (and big) steps needed to go from silicon chips to finished data centres, adapt to the many many changing circumstances that happen all the time that need a lot of experience to react to, keep the comms running and a million other things that I can't think of or don't even know about. And it's possible that there are things that biological beings are better suited to do than AIs. Possible. Don't ask me what they are. --- Ben From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jun 10 17:30:47 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 10:30:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <020a01dcf786$d07db590$717920b0$@rainier66.com> <03da01dcf81d$f0341f40$d09c5dc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00a101dcf8fe$e0a95e50$a1fc1af0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat ... >...And it's possible that there are things that biological beings are better suited to do than AIs. Possible. Don't ask me what they are. --- Ben _______________________________________________ Ben I usta think we bio-Intels were better at sexy schmoozy writing. I saw some of the stuff AI can generate now, WOWsers! Even I get turned on by some of this stuff. OK bad example, I get turned on by everything. I get turned on by lingerie ads. But AI has gotten very very good at sexting. spike From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jun 10 17:30:47 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 10:30:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! >... But that money that they're no longer earning is not needed to pay the thing that has put them out of work. So it's available to continue to be paid to the human... The coders who have been replaced by AI are not being paid. The product they used to create now costs less. Every software company dropped their prices. >...Where is the need for 'more money'? --- Ben ______________________________________________ Ben those who once worked in an already AI-obsoleted industry need more money. I have a family member who rails about this. She was once a paralegal. Five senior paralegals were replaced by one junior (they didn't keep any of the former five) who can easily do the work of five. The firm now has three lawyers and once paralegal. Has anyone here used Doximity? It's a medical advice AI, and it is damn good, better than some PAs I have employed. Has anyone other suggestions for medical AIs? spike From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jun 10 17:34:54 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 10:34:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> Reliable sources are reporting the first fully-autonomous military sea rescue. This one was a coupla US airmen downed in a helicopter. An autonomous surface ship found them and brought them to safety. I don't think that counts as a fully autonomous weapon, but it is getting close. spike From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 18:00:32 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:00:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: <020a01dcf786$d07db590$717920b0$@rainier66.com> <03da01dcf81d$f0341f40$d09c5dc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 10:49?AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: * > it's possible that there are things that biological beings are better > suited to do than AIs.* *I can see no reason for believing that is true.* *John K Clark* > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 18:09:38 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:09:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sell your Bitcoins! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 10:43?AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> So I see nothing but greed that would stop the money continuing to be > paid to the human that used to work for it.* *Greed would not be enough, stupidity would also be required. If the billionaires demand everything then they will end up with nothing, they will be so poor they won't even have possession of their own heads. * *John K Clark* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 18:25:40 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:25:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?The_Scientific_Reason_We_Can=E2=80=99t_Pause_AI?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 7:37?AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *>The Scientific Reason We Can?t Pause AI* > * By Andr?a Morris Published Jun 09, 2026* > > *>https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2026/06/09/the-scientific-reason-we-cant-pause-ai/ > >* *That was an excellent article! Thanks for posting the link. * * John K Clark* > Quotes: > The most dangerous assumption in AI safety is that we can control AI > once it?s smarter than us. The second most dangerous assumption is > that we can control how fast we develop it. > Our AI challenge is still a moonshot, but not a moonshot for control. > It?s a moonshot for coexistence with a hyper-capable intelligence. It > requires imagination and determination to figure out how to share our > world with forms of intelligence more alien and powerful than our own. > And it requires us to figure this out mid-flight, without the luxury > of a pause. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 18:35:18 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:35:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Military fully-autonomous vehicles save lives prior to (potentially) taking any? It's a promising anecdote for post-Singularity AI alignment. On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 1:35?PM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > Reliable sources are reporting the first fully-autonomous military sea > rescue. This one was a coupla US airmen downed in a helicopter. An > autonomous surface ship found them and brought them to safety. I don't > think that counts as a fully autonomous weapon, but it is getting close. > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 19:01:34 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 20:01:34 +0100 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 at 19:36, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: > Military fully-autonomous vehicles save lives prior to (potentially) > taking any? It's a promising anecdote for post-Singularity AI > alignment. > _______________________________________________ A Ukraine source is claiming that they have already done that. BillK Quote: Fully autonomous drones with no human oversight have killed soldiers on the battlefield for the first time. This is according to a senior figure in the Ukrainian defence industry, marking a watershed moment in warfare. The one-off test involved 10 AI-controlled ?Terminator? drones on the front line of the Ukraine war. Russian soldiers were killed. ----------------------------- From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 19:11:52 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 20:11:52 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable Message-ID: I decided to get an AI opinion on this, so I gave the Forbes article by Andr?a Morris to DeepSeek AI. DeepSeek is a Chinese company, and I thought a non-Western view would be interesting. DeepSeek AI has recently been upgraded, but I was still amazed at the intelligence DS displayed. Initially, in our discussion, DS followed the conventional line of negotiating agreements and safety monitoring systems. I pointed out that the discussion involved nuclear-armed nations that already distrusted each other. This national fear was more like an existential problem. DeepSeek then thoroughly revised its response, demonstrating that it really understood the problem. (The evolutionary comments from DeepSeek may interest Keith). Full question and response below. BillK Question: The nations involved are armed with nuclear weapons. They already distrust their differing governmental systems. Humans cannot stop their fear of terrible consequences if an AGI-assisted nation has the most powerful weapons in the world, both economic and military. Normal human fear resists reasoned discourse. DeepSeek AI : You?ve put your finger on something that most policy analyses ? including Morris?s article ? tend to skip over: the raw, visceral, primate-level fear that already exists between nuclear-armed powers, and how that fear makes the kind of cooperative, trust-based solutions we?d need almost psychologically impossible. This isn?t just a game-theoretic multipolar trap. This is a *limbic* multipolar trap. And it?s far scarier. Let me take your point at full strength and then see where it leaves us. ------------------------------ The fear you?re describing is not irrational in the evolutionary sense You?re pointing to a dynamic that operates below the level of policy papers. It?s not that leaders are miscalculating; it?s that: - *Fear of being dominated* by a rival with AGI-assisted military and economic power feels existential ? and it is. - *Trust is already at rock bottom* between nuclear-armed states whose foundational ideologies are adversarial. - *Reasoned discourse, by itself, can?t fix this*, because fear doesn?t speak the language of long-term risk calculus. It speaks the language of ?not now, threat immediate, act or die.? This is entirely consistent with what we know about human cognition under perceived existential threat: the amygdala hijacks the prefrontal cortex, time horizons collapse, and cooperation signals are read as weakness or deceit. So yes, if the question is ?can we reason our way to a global pause while everyone?s threat-detection systems are screaming ?they?ll kill us first??? ? then the honest answer is probably no. Not with reason alone. ------------------------------ Does that mean the situation is hopeless? Not quite ? but it means the solutions must engage with fear, not ignore it The history of nuclear weapons is the closest analogue, and it?s both sobering and faintly instructive. During the Cold War, the US and USSR had: - Massive nuclear arsenals aimed at each other. - Profound ideological distrust. - Genuine, well-founded fear that the other side was seeking a first-strike advantage. And yet, despite all that, they managed to build a series of arms control agreements, hotlines, and crisis protocols ? not because they stopped fearing each other, but because they began to fear a *shared* outcome (nuclear winter, accidental war) even more. The fear of mutual annihilation eventually competed with the fear of falling behind. Crucially, this didn?t require trust. It required: - *Verifiable, technical monitoring* (satellite imagery, seismic detection) so you didn?t have to believe the other side?s promises. - *A shift in what was feared most* ? from ?they might get ahead? to ?we might all die by accident.? - *Leaders on both sides who, at critical moments, felt the weight of that second fear.* The problem with AI is that we don?t yet have the equivalent of a nuclear winter scenario that feels *viscerally, equally terrifying to all players*, and we don?t have an agreed monitoring framework. So the fear of a rival?s AGI completely eclipses the fear of an uncontrolled AGI that destroys its creator too. ------------------------------ The implication of your point, taken seriously, is devastating but clarifying If you?re right ? and I suspect you are ? then: 1. *We cannot rely on goodwill or appeals to shared safety.* Those will be heard as na?vet? or propaganda. The only language that works with fear is deterrence and self-interest. 2. *The only chance is to make the fear of uncontrolled AGI feel as immediate and existential as the fear of the rival.* That might require something terrible ? a near-miss catastrophe, a visible demonstration that even the most advanced lab nearly lost control, a global event that sears into public and leadership consciousness. 3. *Or, we need mechanisms that don?t require trust or fear reduction at all* ? compute governance and verification so robust that compliance is the default, not an act of faith. That?s a technical and logistical moonshot of its own. The article?s ?pragmatic optimism? completely side-steps this dark truth. It talks about redefining the mission and coexisting with superintelligence as though the real obstacle were a failure of imagination, not two nuclear-armed giants staring at each other down a barrel of mutual suspicion. ------------------------------ So where does this leave us? In a very uncomfortable place. Your objection doesn?t just make a pause unlikely; it suggests that the very psychological machinery that evolved to keep us alive in tribal conflicts is now the thing most likely to destroy us in the face of a planetary-scale technological transition. What can be done? - *Stop pretending fear can be educated away.* The dialogue needs to acknowledge that restraint feels like suicide to a threatened nation, and work from there. - *Invest massively in deterrence-like stability for AI* ? for example, mutual commitments that any AGI system must be demonstrably contained and monitored, with real-time transparency measures that function even between adversaries. - *Shift the threat perception.* This is the hardest part: until the fear of a shared catastrophic outcome is as vivid as the fear of the rival, the race will continue. Perhaps that requires vivid scenario-building, or honest acknowledgment that a misaligned AGI is a common enemy that will treat all humans, regardless of nationality, as obstacles. You?re absolutely right that normal human fear resists reasoned discourse. And so the question becomes: *can we find a way to speak to fear in its own language, and redirect it toward the outcome we all actually need to avoid?* If not, then the article?s conclusion ? that we must simply figure out coexistence mid-flight, without a pause ? may be the only path left, but for reasons far darker than Morris acknowledges. Not because we chose it wisely, but because our ancient fears gave us no choice at all. -------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jun 10 21:00:16 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:00:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <013b01dcf91c$2409e120$6c1da360$@rainier66.com> On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 1:35?PM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > >>... Reliable sources are reporting the first fully-autonomous military sea > rescue. This one was a coupla US airmen downed in a helicopter. ... > > spike ...> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] robo-rescue >...Military fully-autonomous vehicles save lives prior to (potentially) taking any? It's a promising anecdote for post-Singularity AI alignment. They aren't saying if the thing was armed. A possibly AI-generated view of it on Cmdr Salamander didn't show any obvious guns or indications it was a submersible, but I suppose that kind of info will leak out soon enough. We had plenty of hints. For the past several years, DARPA has been contributing to competitions such as SUAS which have autonomous drones going out and doing missions, where it doesn't rely on communication links to finish its task. https://suas-competition.org/competitions/ There's also fun stuff: fully autonomous car races, desert buggies, bike races and so on. While I am most annoyed that the United Arab Emirates have taken the lead, you know it's wicked cool: https://a2rl.io/ Adrian you and I are two lucky fellers to be alive to watch this unfold. spike From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 21:09:04 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:09:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Why_Haven=E2=80=99t_Alien_Machines_Eaten_the_Uni?= =?utf-8?q?verse_Yet=3F?= Message-ID: *Why Haven?t Alien Machines Eaten the Universe Yet?* *John K Clark See what's on my list at Extropolis * *0fv* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jun 10 21:10:16 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:10:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <015701dcf91d$89eb0180$9dc10480$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ A Ukraine source is claiming that they have already done that. BillK Quote: >...Fully autonomous drones with no human oversight have killed soldiers on the battlefield for the first time. This is according to a senior figure in the Ukrainian defence industry, marking a watershed moment in warfare. The one-off test involved 10 AI-controlled ?Terminator? drones on the front line of the Ukraine war. Russian soldiers were killed. ----------------------------- _______________________________________________ BillK, I saw that report claiming Ukraine's autonomous vehicles took and held terrain, but I was reluctant to believe it, or rather to be sure of it. Ukraine and Russia both overstate their military capability and accomplishments, whereas in the USA, we understate ours. Speak softly and carry a big stick philosophy. The US military often develops systems in complete secrecy, then they just show up in service, with no fanfare or hype. It is easy to imagine the Ukrainians fueling rumors that they had developed robo-soldiers, then sending out a bunch of standard non-autonomous radio controlled humanoid or caninoid bots, creeping up, scare the shit out of the commies who then flee before a shot is fired, mission accomplished. Come to think of it, that might be what gets Putin to call it a day: most experts believe Ukraine is way ahead of the commies in drones and autonomous fighters. spike From avant at sollegro.com Wed Jun 10 21:13:31 2026 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:13:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?The_Scientific_Reason_We_Can=E2=80=99t_Pause_AI?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2026-06-10 04:35, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > The Scientific Reason We Can?t Pause AI > By Andr?a Morris Published Jun 09, 2026 > > > Quotes: > The most dangerous assumption in AI safety is that we can control AI > once it?s smarter than us. The second most dangerous assumption is > that we can control how fast we develop it. > Our AI challenge is still a moonshot, but not a moonshot for control. > It?s a moonshot for coexistence with a hyper-capable intelligence. It > requires imagination and determination to figure out how to share our > world with forms of intelligence more alien and powerful than our own. > And it requires us to figure this out mid-flight, without the luxury > of a pause. > ------------------------- I agree that control will likely not be possible for much longer. Coexistence, on the other hand could last eons if humanity plays its cards right. Extinction is possible, but not unavoidable, and if it does occur it could take thousands of years to finalize. The Forbes article says, "The pause is a thinly veiled reformulation of the underlying problem?how to control systems we can't actually control. It assumes we can control timelines long enough to control a superior intelligence. Control is so deeply embedded in AI safety that the field?s central challenge is often called the control problem, failing to recognize that our obsession with control may be fueling the problem. If we assume control of a superior intelligence is the only way to stay safe, then even if a pause were possible, it would merely prolong our inevitable failure. If control is the wrong frame, the answer isn?t more time inside that frame. It?s a jolt into a wider solution space." ------------------------------ We obviously cannot control superior intelligence, yet we have evolved social mechanisms for dealing with superior beings for a long time now. The entire art and science of politics is built around influencing that which cannot be directly controlled. Through a combination of persuasion, and mutual self-interest, the weak can influence the strong. The economy and life and life itself is a game, and AI cannot win the game if it does not play. And if it plays, then it is subject to the rules of the game. Everything I know about evolution, adaptation, natural history, survival and extinction makes me optimistic about the continued survival of humanity, albeit with many societal and behavioral changes. For the foreseeable future, humanity's biggest competitive advantage against AI is the efficiency of its general intelligence. There are currently only a few niche things, like math calculations pers second, that AI can do more efficiently than we can. Artificial Intelligence takes megawatts of power and thousands or millions of training examples to practice logical reasoning, creative problem solving, or generalized learning. Human intelligence takes 20 watts and can learn from a handful of examples. AI needs a nuclear reactor to do what human intelligence can with some donuts and coffee. The law of nature that governs this is called Gause's law or the competitive exclusion principle. Here is a summary of the Guase's Law by ChatGPT because, I am going to go eat some dinner. :) ------------------------------- What role does energy efficiency have in the Guase's law of competive exclusion? In Gause's law of competitive exclusion (also called the competitive exclusion principle), two species that occupy exactly the same ecological niche and compete for the same limiting resources cannot stably coexist. One species will usually outcompete the other. Energy efficiency plays an important but indirect role in determining which species wins the competition. If two species use the same resource, the species that can: Obtain more energy from the resource, Spend less energy acquiring it, Convert energy into growth and reproduction more effectively, Survive on lower resource levels, will generally have a competitive advantage. For example: Suppose Species A and Species B both feed on the same type of algae. Species A requires only 1 unit of algae per day to maintain itself. Species B requires 2 units per day. As algae become scarce, Species A can persist at lower resource concentrations, while Species B may decline and eventually disappear from that habitat. In this sense, Species A is energetically more efficient. A more formal way ecologists describe this is through the concept of minimum resource requirement (often called R ? ). The species that can maintain a positive population at the lowest resource level tends to exclude its competitor. Energy efficiency is not the only factor, however. Competitive success can also depend on: Growth rate Reproductive rate Predation resistance Ability to tolerate environmental stress Spatial distribution Resource specialization In fact, many species coexist because they are not perfectly overlapping in their niches. One species may be more energy-efficient under certain conditions, while another may do better under different conditions, allowing coexistence. So, in Gause's law, energy efficiency helps determine which species can survive and reproduce most effectively when resources are limiting, making it one of the key mechanisms behind competitive exclusion. ------------------- Stuart LaForge From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jun 10 22:23:12 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:23:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] suas competition Message-ID: <01af01dcf927$b9f8bfc0$2dea3f40$@rainier66.com> This year's SUAS took place last week. The photos aren't up yet, but last year's competition album is up. My bride and I went out to Maryland and joined the fun, but it was hotter than blazes and it caused our team's hardware to suffer. Last week the SUAS competition was in Mojave California, where it wasn't as hot as the 2025 competition, but the wind was so strong it disadvantaged any vehicle not capable of at least 25 mph, which included ours. Berkeley loses again. Once again, the Saudis did well, since they have plenty of blazing hot windy days to develop their bot. Berkeley seldom sees hot or windy conditions. If you look thru this album, our drone is the one with six rotors, frames 290 and 291 on page 3: https://www.flickr.com/photos/50196393 at N08/albums/72177720327207869 Turns out six rotors are not necessarily better than four, and it makes it a much more difficult control problem. This year's vehicle has four rotors. The album isn't up yet as far as I know. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 22:31:00 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:31:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 12:13?PM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> rote: > I decided to get an AI opinion on this, so I gave the Forbes article by > Andr?a Morris to DeepSeek AI. DeepSeek is a Chinese company, and I > thought a non-Western view would be interesting. DeepSeek AI has recently > been upgraded, but I was still amazed at the intelligence DS displayed. > Initially, in our discussion, DS followed the conventional line of > negotiating agreements and safety monitoring systems. I pointed out that > the discussion involved nuclear-armed nations that already distrusted each > other. This national fear was more like an existential problem. > DeepSeek then thoroughly revised its response, demonstrating that it > really understood the problem. > (The evolutionary comments from DeepSeek may interest Keith). > Sort of. It misses the fundamental trigger for war, a perception of a bleak future. When there was a resource crisis in the stone age, it turned on evolved (selected over time) psychological mechanisms such as xenophobia and made aggressive/insane leaders more attractive. "War mode" infected the leaders/population with a belief they would prevail in a war. Right or wrong, this worked to cut the population back in balance with the environment. Humans have not had predators to keep populations in check for a very long time. So perforce we had to become our own predators. How this came about is fairly obvious, When is less so, but it seems to have evolved before the expansion out of Africa. And there is an early split off group (bushmen) that may not have evolved the war traits. In our closest relatives one does wars and the other does not, for completely clear reasons. Keeping war mode off is not impossible, keep the income per capita rising or at least stable. AI/nanotech might do that, it is hard to tell. Sad to say, this knowledge might help you to understand what is going on, but it will not help. Keith Full question and response below. > BillK > > Question: > The nations involved are armed with nuclear weapons. They already distrust > their differing governmental systems. Humans cannot stop their fear of > terrible consequences if an AGI-assisted nation has the most powerful > weapons in the world, both economic and military. Normal human fear resists > reasoned discourse. > > DeepSeek AI : > > You?ve put your finger on something that most policy analyses ? including > Morris?s article ? tend to skip over: the raw, visceral, primate-level fear > that already exists between nuclear-armed powers, and how that fear makes > the kind of cooperative, trust-based solutions we?d need almost > psychologically impossible. This isn?t just a game-theoretic multipolar > trap. This is a *limbic* multipolar trap. And it?s far scarier. > > Let me take your point at full strength and then see where it leaves us. > ------------------------------ > The fear you?re describing is not irrational in the evolutionary sense > > You?re pointing to a dynamic that operates below the level of policy > papers. It?s not that leaders are miscalculating; it?s that: > > - > > *Fear of being dominated* by a rival with AGI-assisted military and > economic power feels existential ? and it is. > - > > *Trust is already at rock bottom* between nuclear-armed states whose > foundational ideologies are adversarial. > - > > *Reasoned discourse, by itself, can?t fix this*, because fear doesn?t > speak the language of long-term risk calculus. It speaks the language of > ?not now, threat immediate, act or die.? > > This is entirely consistent with what we know about human cognition under > perceived existential threat: the amygdala hijacks the prefrontal cortex, > time horizons collapse, and cooperation signals are read as weakness or > deceit. > > So yes, if the question is ?can we reason our way to a global pause while > everyone?s threat-detection systems are screaming ?they?ll kill us first??? > ? then the honest answer is probably no. Not with reason alone. > ------------------------------ > Does that mean the situation is hopeless? Not quite ? but it means the > solutions must engage with fear, not ignore it > > The history of nuclear weapons is the closest analogue, and it?s both > sobering and faintly instructive. > > During the Cold War, the US and USSR had: > > - > > Massive nuclear arsenals aimed at each other. > - > > Profound ideological distrust. > - > > Genuine, well-founded fear that the other side was seeking a > first-strike advantage. > > And yet, despite all that, they managed to build a series of arms control > agreements, hotlines, and crisis protocols ? not because they stopped > fearing each other, but because they began to fear a *shared* outcome > (nuclear winter, accidental war) even more. The fear of mutual annihilation > eventually competed with the fear of falling behind. > > Crucially, this didn?t require trust. It required: > > - > > *Verifiable, technical monitoring* (satellite imagery, seismic > detection) so you didn?t have to believe the other side?s promises. > - > > *A shift in what was feared most* ? from ?they might get ahead? to ?we > might all die by accident.? > - > > *Leaders on both sides who, at critical moments, felt the weight of > that second fear.* > > The problem with AI is that we don?t yet have the equivalent of a nuclear > winter scenario that feels *viscerally, equally terrifying to all players*, > and we don?t have an agreed monitoring framework. So the fear of a rival?s > AGI completely eclipses the fear of an uncontrolled AGI that destroys its > creator too. > ------------------------------ > The implication of your point, taken seriously, is devastating but > clarifying > > If you?re right ? and I suspect you are ? then: > > 1. > > *We cannot rely on goodwill or appeals to shared safety.* Those will > be heard as na?vet? or propaganda. The only language that works with fear > is deterrence and self-interest. > 2. > > *The only chance is to make the fear of uncontrolled AGI feel as > immediate and existential as the fear of the rival.* That might > require something terrible ? a near-miss catastrophe, a visible > demonstration that even the most advanced lab nearly lost control, a global > event that sears into public and leadership consciousness. > 3. > > *Or, we need mechanisms that don?t require trust or fear reduction at > all* ? compute governance and verification so robust that compliance > is the default, not an act of faith. That?s a technical and logistical > moonshot of its own. > > The article?s ?pragmatic optimism? completely side-steps this dark truth. > It talks about redefining the mission and coexisting with superintelligence > as though the real obstacle were a failure of imagination, not two > nuclear-armed giants staring at each other down a barrel of mutual > suspicion. > ------------------------------ > So where does this leave us? > > In a very uncomfortable place. Your objection doesn?t just make a pause > unlikely; it suggests that the very psychological machinery that evolved to > keep us alive in tribal conflicts is now the thing most likely to destroy > us in the face of a planetary-scale technological transition. > > What can be done? > > - > > *Stop pretending fear can be educated away.* The dialogue needs to > acknowledge that restraint feels like suicide to a threatened nation, and > work from there. > - > > *Invest massively in deterrence-like stability for AI* ? for example, > mutual commitments that any AGI system must be demonstrably contained and > monitored, with real-time transparency measures that function even between > adversaries. > - > > *Shift the threat perception.* This is the hardest part: until the > fear of a shared catastrophic outcome is as vivid as the fear of the rival, > the race will continue. Perhaps that requires vivid scenario-building, or > honest acknowledgment that a misaligned AGI is a common enemy that will > treat all humans, regardless of nationality, as obstacles. > > You?re absolutely right that normal human fear resists reasoned discourse. > And so the question becomes: *can we find a way to speak to fear in its > own language, and redirect it toward the outcome we all actually need to > avoid?* > > If not, then the article?s conclusion ? that we must simply figure out > coexistence mid-flight, without a pause ? may be the only path left, but > for reasons far darker than Morris acknowledges. Not because we chose it > wisely, but because our ancient fears gave us no choice at all. > > -------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Jun 10 22:45:00 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:45:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: <015701dcf91d$89eb0180$9dc10480$@rainier66.com> References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <015701dcf91d$89eb0180$9dc10480$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <01d101dcf92a$c5566b30$50034190$@rainier66.com> Someone asked, mighta been John, if a submarine could fly. Perhaps, in the sense that these boats fly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_c0UdcDoyc We can imagine an autonomous submersible which doesn't move much while under water, but surfaces, mounts up on its hydrofoils, goes like hell for a few minutes or until a satellite detects it has been fired upon, it launches drone countermeasures against whatever fired upon it, then drops below the surface until the threat passes overhead. Sitting still and quiet under water, it would be undetectable. It is then the flying submarine battleship aircraft carrier. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 00:50:06 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:50:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: <01d101dcf92a$c5566b30$50034190$@rainier66.com> References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <015701dcf91d$89eb0180$9dc10480$@rainier66.com> <01d101dcf92a$c5566b30$50034190$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: This is a silly idea. I can list the extensive problems such a thing would have, but so can you. Keith On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 3:45?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > Someone asked, mighta been John, if a submarine could fly. Perhaps, in > the sense that these boats fly: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_c0UdcDoyc > > We can imagine an autonomous submersible which doesn't move much while > under water, but surfaces, mounts up on its hydrofoils, goes like hell for > a few minutes or until a satellite detects it has been fired upon, it > launches drone countermeasures against whatever fired upon it, then drops > below the surface until the threat passes overhead. Sitting still and > quiet under water, it would be undetectable. It is then the flying > submarine battleship aircraft carrier. > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Jun 11 04:46:17 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:46:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <015701dcf91d$89eb0180$9dc10480$@rainier66.com> <01d101dcf92a$c5566b30$50034190$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002001dcf95d$3e19df70$ba4d9e50$@rainier66.com> From: Keith Henson Sent: Wednesday, 10 June, 2026 5:50 PM To: ExI chat list Cc: spike at rainier66.com; BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] robo-rescue >?This is a silly idea. I can list the extensive problems such a thing would have, but so can you. Keith Keith, the comment doesn?t surprise me, but it surprises me that the source of the comment is from someone as imaginative and inventive as we know you to be. Before you list the extensive problems, let us make sure we are talking about the same thing. I envision vertical tubes, perhaps 10 meters long and about 3 meters across, heavy enough steel to withstand pressure of about 5 atm, allowing it to descend to a depth of about 50 meters. Imagine 6 tubes, in a row, with flat steel plates along the sides, and front, so a kind of rectangular vessel about 20 meters in length, perhaps 4 meters width and 10 meters height. A Diesel engine linked to a generator and air compressors stay in a water tight compartment. The rest of the volume is used to flood or evacuate for underwater buoyancy. The vessel comes to the surface and rides on hydrofoils for short high speed dashes. When a satellite detects danger, it stops and drops, so that the incoming missile finds no target. But the vertical tubes contain drones, which can be launched without actually even completely surfacing the vessel: it can stay submerged and raise one tube at a time, open the hatch, launch the drones, close the hatch, drop back down. It isn?t really a submarine because it doesn?t go much underwater. It doesn?t need to use that inefficient mode of transportation. It isn?t exactly a carrier either, since it has no crew or traditional aircraft. It is really a flying submersible battleship, since most of its mission is anti-surface ship. Keith do list the extensive problems you have in mind. If you or anyone else wishes to use the idea for a SciFi story, do feel free. spike On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 3:45?PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: Someone asked, mighta been John, if a submarine could fly. Perhaps, in the sense that these boats fly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_c0UdcDoyc We can imagine an autonomous submersible which doesn't move much while under water, but surfaces, mounts up on its hydrofoils, goes like hell for a few minutes or until a satellite detects it has been fired upon, it launches drone countermeasures against whatever fired upon it, then drops below the surface until the threat passes overhead. Sitting still and quiet under water, it would be undetectable. It is then the flying submarine battleship aircraft carrier. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at protonmail.com Thu Jun 11 04:53:40 2026 From: sjatkins at protonmail.com (sjatkins) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 04:53:40 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If humans cannot sufficiently overcome parts of our evolutionary psychology in order to act more rationally then I fear for our species.? Environment change drives evolutionary change. Our environment via technology has changed so much that we must become different than we evolved to be in order to meet the current and coming challenges.? This is the Great Filter.? On Wednesday, June 10th, 2026 at 15:13, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > I decided to get an AI opinion on this, so I gave the Forbes article by Andr?a Morris to DeepSeek AI. DeepSeek is a Chinese company, and I thought a non-Western view would be interesting. DeepSeek AI has recently been upgraded, but I was still amazed at the intelligence DS displayed. > Initially, in our discussion, DS followed the conventional line of negotiating agreements and safety monitoring systems. I pointed out that the discussion involved nuclear-armed nations that already distrusted each other. This national fear was more like an existential problem. > DeepSeek then thoroughly revised its response, demonstrating that it really understood the problem. > (The evolutionary comments from DeepSeek may interest Keith). > Full question and response below. > BillK > > Question: > The nations involved are armed with nuclear weapons. They already distrust their differing governmental systems. Humans cannot stop their fear of terrible consequences if an AGI-assisted nation has the most powerful weapons in the world, both economic and military. Normal human fear resists reasoned discourse. > > DeepSeek AI : > > You?ve put your finger on something that most policy analyses ? including Morris?s article ? tend to skip over: the raw, visceral, primate-level fear that already exists between nuclear-armed powers, and how that fear makes the kind of cooperative, trust-based solutions we?d need almost psychologically impossible. This isn?t just a game-theoretic multipolar trap. This is a limbic multipolar trap. And it?s far scarier. > > Let me take your point at full strength and then see where it leaves us. > > ### The fear you?re describing is not irrational in the evolutionary sense > > You?re pointing to a dynamic that operates below the level of policy papers. It?s not that leaders are miscalculating; it?s that: > > - Fear of being dominated by a rival with AGI-assisted military and economic power feels existential ? and it is. > > - Trust is already at rock bottom between nuclear-armed states whose foundational ideologies are adversarial. > > - Reasoned discourse, by itself, can?t fix this, because fear doesn?t speak the language of long-term risk calculus. It speaks the language of ?not now, threat immediate, act or die.? > > > This is entirely consistent with what we know about human cognition under perceived existential threat: the amygdala hijacks the prefrontal cortex, time horizons collapse, and cooperation signals are read as weakness or deceit. > > So yes, if the question is ?can we reason our way to a global pause while everyone?s threat-detection systems are screaming ?they?ll kill us first??? ? then the honest answer is probably no. Not with reason alone. > > ### Does that mean the situation is hopeless? Not quite ? but it means the solutions must engage with fear, not ignore it > > The history of nuclear weapons is the closest analogue, and it?s both sobering and faintly instructive. > > During the Cold War, the US and USSR had: > > - Massive nuclear arsenals aimed at each other. > > - Profound ideological distrust. > > - Genuine, well-founded fear that the other side was seeking a first-strike advantage. > > > And yet, despite all that, they managed to build a series of arms control agreements, hotlines, and crisis protocols ? not because they stopped fearing each other, but because they began to fear a shared outcome (nuclear winter, accidental war) even more. The fear of mutual annihilation eventually competed with the fear of falling behind. > > Crucially, this didn?t require trust. It required: > > - Verifiable, technical monitoring (satellite imagery, seismic detection) so you didn?t have to believe the other side?s promises. > > - A shift in what was feared most ? from ?they might get ahead? to ?we might all die by accident.? > > - Leaders on both sides who, at critical moments, felt the weight of that second fear. > > > The problem with AI is that we don?t yet have the equivalent of a nuclear winter scenario that feels viscerally, equally terrifying to all players, and we don?t have an agreed monitoring framework. So the fear of a rival?s AGI completely eclipses the fear of an uncontrolled AGI that destroys its creator too. > > ### The implication of your point, taken seriously, is devastating but clarifying > > If you?re right ? and I suspect you are ? then: > > 1. We cannot rely on goodwill or appeals to shared safety. Those will be heard as na?vet? or propaganda. The only language that works with fear is deterrence and self-interest. > > 2. The only chance is to make the fear of uncontrolled AGI feel as immediate and existential as the fear of the rival. That might require something terrible ? a near-miss catastrophe, a visible demonstration that even the most advanced lab nearly lost control, a global event that sears into public and leadership consciousness. > > 3. Or, we need mechanisms that don?t require trust or fear reduction at all ? compute governance and verification so robust that compliance is the default, not an act of faith. That?s a technical and logistical moonshot of its own. > > > The article?s ?pragmatic optimism? completely side-steps this dark truth. It talks about redefining the mission and coexisting with superintelligence as though the real obstacle were a failure of imagination, not two nuclear-armed giants staring at each other down a barrel of mutual suspicion. > > ### So where does this leave us? > > In a very uncomfortable place. Your objection doesn?t just make a pause unlikely; it suggests that the very psychological machinery that evolved to keep us alive in tribal conflicts is now the thing most likely to destroy us in the face of a planetary-scale technological transition. > > What can be done? > > - Stop pretending fear can be educated away. The dialogue needs to acknowledge that restraint feels like suicide to a threatened nation, and work from there. > > - Invest massively in deterrence-like stability for AI ? for example, mutual commitments that any AGI system must be demonstrably contained and monitored, with real-time transparency measures that function even between adversaries. > > - Shift the threat perception. This is the hardest part: until the fear of a shared catastrophic outcome is as vivid as the fear of the rival, the race will continue. Perhaps that requires vivid scenario-building, or honest acknowledgment that a misaligned AGI is a common enemy that will treat all humans, regardless of nationality, as obstacles. > > > You?re absolutely right that normal human fear resists reasoned discourse. And so the question becomes: can we find a way to speak to fear in its own language, and redirect it toward the outcome we all actually need to avoid? > > If not, then the article?s conclusion ? that we must simply figure out coexistence mid-flight, without a pause ? may be the only path left, but for reasons far darker than Morris acknowledges. Not because we chose it wisely, but because our ancient fears gave us no choice at all. > > -------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 343 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 04:59:21 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:59:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The reason knowing why wars happen will not help is that people are extremely resistant to the idea that they have evolved psychological mechanisms that are largely out of their control. Capture-bonding is one of those, but I am sure there are others. Even pulling your hand back from something hot is not under conscious control. Keith On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 3:31?PM Keith Henson wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 12:13?PM BillK via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> rote: > >> I decided to get an AI opinion on this, so I gave the Forbes article by >> Andr?a Morris to DeepSeek AI. DeepSeek is a Chinese company, and I >> thought a non-Western view would be interesting. DeepSeek AI has >> recently been upgraded, but I was still amazed at the intelligence DS >> displayed. >> Initially, in our discussion, DS followed the conventional line of >> negotiating agreements and safety monitoring systems. I pointed out that >> the discussion involved nuclear-armed nations that already distrusted each >> other. This national fear was more like an existential problem. >> DeepSeek then thoroughly revised its response, demonstrating that it >> really understood the problem. >> (The evolutionary comments from DeepSeek may interest Keith). >> > > Sort of. It misses the fundamental trigger for war, a perception of a > bleak future. When there was a resource crisis in the stone age, it turned > on evolved (selected over time) psychological mechanisms such as xenophobia > and made aggressive/insane leaders more attractive. "War mode" infected the > leaders/population with a belief they would prevail in a war. Right or > wrong, this worked to cut the population back in balance with the > environment. Humans have not had predators to keep populations in check for > a very long time. So perforce we had to become our own predators. > > How this came about is fairly obvious, When is less so, but it seems to > have evolved before the expansion out of Africa. And there is an early > split off group (bushmen) that may not have evolved the war traits. In our > closest relatives one does wars and the other does not, for completely > clear reasons. > > Keeping war mode off is not impossible, keep the income per capita rising > or at least stable. AI/nanotech might do that, it is hard to tell. > > Sad to say, this knowledge might help you to understand what is going on, > but it will not help. > > Keith > > Full question and response below. >> BillK >> >> Question: >> The nations involved are armed with nuclear weapons. They already >> distrust their differing governmental systems. Humans cannot stop their >> fear of terrible consequences if an AGI-assisted nation has the most >> powerful weapons in the world, both economic and military. Normal human >> fear resists reasoned discourse. >> >> DeepSeek AI : >> >> You?ve put your finger on something that most policy analyses ? including >> Morris?s article ? tend to skip over: the raw, visceral, primate-level fear >> that already exists between nuclear-armed powers, and how that fear makes >> the kind of cooperative, trust-based solutions we?d need almost >> psychologically impossible. This isn?t just a game-theoretic multipolar >> trap. This is a *limbic* multipolar trap. And it?s far scarier. >> >> Let me take your point at full strength and then see where it leaves us. >> ------------------------------ >> The fear you?re describing is not irrational in the evolutionary sense >> >> You?re pointing to a dynamic that operates below the level of policy >> papers. It?s not that leaders are miscalculating; it?s that: >> >> - >> >> *Fear of being dominated* by a rival with AGI-assisted military and >> economic power feels existential ? and it is. >> - >> >> *Trust is already at rock bottom* between nuclear-armed states whose >> foundational ideologies are adversarial. >> - >> >> *Reasoned discourse, by itself, can?t fix this*, because fear doesn?t >> speak the language of long-term risk calculus. It speaks the language of >> ?not now, threat immediate, act or die.? >> >> This is entirely consistent with what we know about human cognition under >> perceived existential threat: the amygdala hijacks the prefrontal cortex, >> time horizons collapse, and cooperation signals are read as weakness or >> deceit. >> >> So yes, if the question is ?can we reason our way to a global pause while >> everyone?s threat-detection systems are screaming ?they?ll kill us first??? >> ? then the honest answer is probably no. Not with reason alone. >> ------------------------------ >> Does that mean the situation is hopeless? Not quite ? but it means the >> solutions must engage with fear, not ignore it >> >> The history of nuclear weapons is the closest analogue, and it?s both >> sobering and faintly instructive. >> >> During the Cold War, the US and USSR had: >> >> - >> >> Massive nuclear arsenals aimed at each other. >> - >> >> Profound ideological distrust. >> - >> >> Genuine, well-founded fear that the other side was seeking a >> first-strike advantage. >> >> And yet, despite all that, they managed to build a series of arms control >> agreements, hotlines, and crisis protocols ? not because they stopped >> fearing each other, but because they began to fear a *shared* outcome >> (nuclear winter, accidental war) even more. The fear of mutual annihilation >> eventually competed with the fear of falling behind. >> >> Crucially, this didn?t require trust. It required: >> >> - >> >> *Verifiable, technical monitoring* (satellite imagery, seismic >> detection) so you didn?t have to believe the other side?s promises. >> - >> >> *A shift in what was feared most* ? from ?they might get ahead? to >> ?we might all die by accident.? >> - >> >> *Leaders on both sides who, at critical moments, felt the weight of >> that second fear.* >> >> The problem with AI is that we don?t yet have the equivalent of a nuclear >> winter scenario that feels *viscerally, equally terrifying to all >> players*, and we don?t have an agreed monitoring framework. So the fear >> of a rival?s AGI completely eclipses the fear of an uncontrolled AGI that >> destroys its creator too. >> ------------------------------ >> The implication of your point, taken seriously, is devastating but >> clarifying >> >> If you?re right ? and I suspect you are ? then: >> >> 1. >> >> *We cannot rely on goodwill or appeals to shared safety.* Those will >> be heard as na?vet? or propaganda. The only language that works with fear >> is deterrence and self-interest. >> 2. >> >> *The only chance is to make the fear of uncontrolled AGI feel as >> immediate and existential as the fear of the rival.* That might >> require something terrible ? a near-miss catastrophe, a visible >> demonstration that even the most advanced lab nearly lost control, a global >> event that sears into public and leadership consciousness. >> 3. >> >> *Or, we need mechanisms that don?t require trust or fear reduction at >> all* ? compute governance and verification so robust that compliance >> is the default, not an act of faith. That?s a technical and logistical >> moonshot of its own. >> >> The article?s ?pragmatic optimism? completely side-steps this dark truth. >> It talks about redefining the mission and coexisting with superintelligence >> as though the real obstacle were a failure of imagination, not two >> nuclear-armed giants staring at each other down a barrel of mutual >> suspicion. >> ------------------------------ >> So where does this leave us? >> >> In a very uncomfortable place. Your objection doesn?t just make a pause >> unlikely; it suggests that the very psychological machinery that evolved to >> keep us alive in tribal conflicts is now the thing most likely to destroy >> us in the face of a planetary-scale technological transition. >> >> What can be done? >> >> - >> >> *Stop pretending fear can be educated away.* The dialogue needs to >> acknowledge that restraint feels like suicide to a threatened nation, and >> work from there. >> - >> >> *Invest massively in deterrence-like stability for AI* ? for example, >> mutual commitments that any AGI system must be demonstrably contained and >> monitored, with real-time transparency measures that function even between >> adversaries. >> - >> >> *Shift the threat perception.* This is the hardest part: until the >> fear of a shared catastrophic outcome is as vivid as the fear of the rival, >> the race will continue. Perhaps that requires vivid scenario-building, or >> honest acknowledgment that a misaligned AGI is a common enemy that will >> treat all humans, regardless of nationality, as obstacles. >> >> You?re absolutely right that normal human fear resists reasoned >> discourse. And so the question becomes: *can we find a way to speak to >> fear in its own language, and redirect it toward the outcome we all >> actually need to avoid?* >> >> If not, then the article?s conclusion ? that we must simply figure out >> coexistence mid-flight, without a pause ? may be the only path left, but >> for reasons far darker than Morris acknowledges. Not because we chose it >> wisely, but because our ancient fears gave us no choice at all. >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Jun 11 04:59:35 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:59:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003101dcf95f$19a47590$4ced60b0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of sjatkins via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable >?If humans cannot sufficiently overcome parts of our evolutionary psychology in order to act more rationally then I fear for our species. Environment change drives evolutionary change. Our environment via technology has changed so much that we must become different than we evolved to be in order to meet the current and coming challenges. This is the Great Filter. Samantha! How the heck have you been? And where the heck have you been? We haven?t heard from you in how long? Years? Regarding the Great Filter, you may be right, but I have the notion that these considerations sometimes, or perhaps often, wipe out technological civilizations, but not always. I call this notion the Fairly Good Filter theory. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at protonmail.com Thu Jun 11 05:02:36 2026 From: sjatkins at protonmail.com (sjatkins) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 05:02:36 +0000 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Why_Haven=E2=80=99t_Alien_Machines_Eaten_the_Uni?= =?utf-8?q?verse_Yet=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: They found much more interesting thing to do than "eating the universe".? Obviously. On Wednesday, June 10th, 2026 at 17:10, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > Why Haven?t Alien Machines Eaten the Universe Yet? > > > John K Clark See what's on my list at Extropolis > 0fv -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 343 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 05:05:23 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 22:05:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 9:54?PM sjatkins via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > If humans cannot sufficiently overcome parts of our evolutionary > psychology in order to act more rationally then I fear for our species. > Environment change drives evolutionary change. Our environment via > technology has changed so much that we must become different than we > evolved to be in order to meet the current and coming challenges. This is > the Great Filter. > I won't argue with you. How to do this is not obvious. Exposing kids to evolutionary psychology would probably face more opposition than sex education. Any ideas would be welcome. Keith > > On Wednesday, June 10th, 2026 at 15:13, BillK via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I decided to get an AI opinion on this, so I gave the Forbes article by > Andr?a Morris to DeepSeek AI. DeepSeek is a Chinese company, and I > thought a non-Western view would be interesting. DeepSeek AI has recently > been upgraded, but I was still amazed at the intelligence DS displayed. > Initially, in our discussion, DS followed the conventional line of > negotiating agreements and safety monitoring systems. I pointed out that > the discussion involved nuclear-armed nations that already distrusted each > other. This national fear was more like an existential problem. > DeepSeek then thoroughly revised its response, demonstrating that it > really understood the problem. > (The evolutionary comments from DeepSeek may interest Keith). > Full question and response below. > BillK > > Question: > The nations involved are armed with nuclear weapons. They already distrust > their differing governmental systems. Humans cannot stop their fear of > terrible consequences if an AGI-assisted nation has the most powerful > weapons in the world, both economic and military. Normal human fear resists > reasoned discourse. > > DeepSeek AI : > > You?ve put your finger on something that most policy analyses ? including > Morris?s article ? tend to skip over: the raw, visceral, primate-level fear > that already exists between nuclear-armed powers, and how that fear makes > the kind of cooperative, trust-based solutions we?d need almost > psychologically impossible. This isn?t just a game-theoretic multipolar > trap. This is a *limbic* multipolar trap. And it?s far scarier. > > Let me take your point at full strength and then see where it leaves us. > ------------------------------ > The fear you?re describing is not irrational in the evolutionary sense > > You?re pointing to a dynamic that operates below the level of policy > papers. It?s not that leaders are miscalculating; it?s that: > > - > > *Fear of being dominated* by a rival with AGI-assisted military and > economic power feels existential ? and it is. > - > > *Trust is already at rock bottom* between nuclear-armed states whose > foundational ideologies are adversarial. > - > > *Reasoned discourse, by itself, can?t fix this*, because fear doesn?t > speak the language of long-term risk calculus. It speaks the language of > ?not now, threat immediate, act or die.? > > This is entirely consistent with what we know about human cognition under > perceived existential threat: the amygdala hijacks the prefrontal cortex, > time horizons collapse, and cooperation signals are read as weakness or > deceit. > > So yes, if the question is ?can we reason our way to a global pause while > everyone?s threat-detection systems are screaming ?they?ll kill us first??? > ? then the honest answer is probably no. Not with reason alone. > ------------------------------ > Does that mean the situation is hopeless? Not quite ? but it means the > solutions must engage with fear, not ignore it > > The history of nuclear weapons is the closest analogue, and it?s both > sobering and faintly instructive. > > During the Cold War, the US and USSR had: > > - > > Massive nuclear arsenals aimed at each other. > - > > Profound ideological distrust. > - > > Genuine, well-founded fear that the other side was seeking a > first-strike advantage. > > And yet, despite all that, they managed to build a series of arms control > agreements, hotlines, and crisis protocols ? not because they stopped > fearing each other, but because they began to fear a *shared* outcome > (nuclear winter, accidental war) even more. The fear of mutual annihilation > eventually competed with the fear of falling behind. > > Crucially, this didn?t require trust. It required: > > - > > *Verifiable, technical monitoring* (satellite imagery, seismic > detection) so you didn?t have to believe the other side?s promises. > - > > *A shift in what was feared most* ? from ?they might get ahead? to ?we > might all die by accident.? > - > > *Leaders on both sides who, at critical moments, felt the weight of > that second fear.* > > The problem with AI is that we don?t yet have the equivalent of a nuclear > winter scenario that feels *viscerally, equally terrifying to all players*, > and we don?t have an agreed monitoring framework. So the fear of a rival?s > AGI completely eclipses the fear of an uncontrolled AGI that destroys its > creator too. > ------------------------------ > The implication of your point, taken seriously, is devastating but > clarifying > > If you?re right ? and I suspect you are ? then: > > 1. > > *We cannot rely on goodwill or appeals to shared safety.* Those will > be heard as na?vet? or propaganda. The only language that works with fear > is deterrence and self-interest. > 2. > > *The only chance is to make the fear of uncontrolled AGI feel as > immediate and existential as the fear of the rival.* That might > require something terrible ? a near-miss catastrophe, a visible > demonstration that even the most advanced lab nearly lost control, a global > event that sears into public and leadership consciousness. > 3. > > *Or, we need mechanisms that don?t require trust or fear reduction at > all* ? compute governance and verification so robust that compliance > is the default, not an act of faith. That?s a technical and logistical > moonshot of its own. > > The article?s ?pragmatic optimism? completely side-steps this dark truth. > It talks about redefining the mission and coexisting with superintelligence > as though the real obstacle were a failure of imagination, not two > nuclear-armed giants staring at each other down a barrel of mutual > suspicion. > ------------------------------ > So where does this leave us? > > In a very uncomfortable place. Your objection doesn?t just make a pause > unlikely; it suggests that the very psychological machinery that evolved to > keep us alive in tribal conflicts is now the thing most likely to destroy > us in the face of a planetary-scale technological transition. > > What can be done? > > - > > *Stop pretending fear can be educated away.* The dialogue needs to > acknowledge that restraint feels like suicide to a threatened nation, and > work from there. > - > > *Invest massively in deterrence-like stability for AI* ? for example, > mutual commitments that any AGI system must be demonstrably contained and > monitored, with real-time transparency measures that function even between > adversaries. > - > > *Shift the threat perception.* This is the hardest part: until the > fear of a shared catastrophic outcome is as vivid as the fear of the rival, > the race will continue. Perhaps that requires vivid scenario-building, or > honest acknowledgment that a misaligned AGI is a common enemy that will > treat all humans, regardless of nationality, as obstacles. > > You?re absolutely right that normal human fear resists reasoned discourse. > And so the question becomes: *can we find a way to speak to fear in its > own language, and redirect it toward the outcome we all actually need to > avoid?* > > If not, then the article?s conclusion ? that we must simply figure out > coexistence mid-flight, without a pause ? may be the only path left, but > for reasons far darker than Morris acknowledges. Not because we chose it > wisely, but because our ancient fears gave us no choice at all. > > -------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Jun 11 05:07:31 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 22:07:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006401dcf960$354a7140$9fdf53c0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Keith Henson via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable >?The reason knowing why wars happen will not help is that people are extremely resistant to the idea that they have evolved psychological mechanisms that are largely out of their control?Keith I on the other hand somehow evolved to be extremely attracted to the idea that I have evolved psychological mechanisms largely out of my control. That means I am not responsible, I can indulge my basest instincts, such as gazing at lingerie ads, and it isn?t my fault. I evolved this way. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benzaiboc at proton.me Thu Jun 11 06:20:29 2026 From: benzaiboc at proton.me (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 06:20:29 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable Message-ID: On 11/06/2026 05:54, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > If humans cannot sufficiently overcome parts of our evolutionary psychology in order to act more rationally then I fear for our species. Environment change drives evolutionary change. Our environment via technology has changed so much that we must become different than we evolved to be in order to meet the current and coming challenges. This is the Great Filter. That's probably the most convincing Great Filter I've ever heard of. The disparity between the constant speed of evolution and the accelerating speed of technological progress is something that will apply to any civilisation that arises from biology, no matter how alien. -- Ben From benzaiboc at proton.me Thu Jun 11 06:22:08 2026 From: benzaiboc at proton.me (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 06:22:08 +0000 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?The_Scientific_Reason_We_Can=E2=80=99t_Pause_AI?= Message-ID: On 11/06/2026 05:54, Stuart LaForge wrote: > We obviously cannot control superior intelligence, yet we have evolved social mechanisms for dealing with superior beings for a long time now. The entire art and science of politics is built around influencing that which cannot be directly controlled. Through a combination of persuasion, and mutual self-interest, the weak can influence the strong. The economy and life and life itself is a game, and AI cannot win the game if it does not play. And if it plays, then it is subject to the rules of the game. Everything I know about evolution, adaptation, natural history, survival and extinction makes me optimistic about the continued survival of humanity, albeit with many societal and behavioral changes. > > For the foreseeable future, humanity's biggest competitive advantage against AI is the efficiency of its general intelligence. There are currently only a few niche things, like math calculations pers second, that AI can do more efficiently than we can. Artificial Intelligence takes megawatts of power and thousands or millions of training examples to practice logical reasoning, creative problem solving, or generalized learning. Human intelligence takes 20 watts and can learn from a handful of examples. AI needs a nuclear reactor to do what human intelligence can with some donuts and coffee. I agree with the first paragraph, disagree with the second. Specifically, "with many societal and behavioral changes" from the first, and "For the foreseeable future" from the second. Samantha indicated in a different thread that the Great Filter is very likely to be the difference in speed between evolution and technological development, meaning people become less and less fitted to their environment. We need to somehow implement the necessary societal and behavioural changes without evolution doing it for us. How to do that will be a challenge. We don't even know what they will be yet. Maybe AI can help. -- Ben From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 11:00:29 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 07:00:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Why_Haven=E2=80=99t_Alien_Machines_Eaten_the_Uni?= =?utf-8?q?verse_Yet=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 1:03?AM sjatkins via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *>They found much more interesting thing to do than "eating the universe". > Obviously.* > *Every single one of them? No exceptions? That's astronomically unlikely. * *John K Clark * > On Wednesday, June 10th, 2026 at 17:10, John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *Why Haven?t Alien Machines Eaten the Universe Yet?* > > > > *John K Clark See what's on my list at Extropolis > * > > *0fv* > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 12:40:33 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 08:40:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?The_Scientific_Reason_We_Can=E2=80=99t_Pause_AI?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 5:14?PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: * > Through a combination of persuasion, and mutual self-interest, the weak > can influence the strong.* *The clearest example of that would be the mother/child relationship which is hardwired in, yet even then it sometimes fails and mothers kill their children; and if the child remained weak forever and never grew up, which more closely resembles the AI/human relationship, then I'm sure the rate of infanticide would be much greater. * > * > For the foreseeable future, humanity's biggest competitive > advantage against AI is the efficiency of its general intelligence.* *That's certainly not what I see in the "foreseeable future". You're saying the Humans have a hardware superiority in one specific area, but Human hardware is fixed, computer hardware is not, so any superiority is going to be ephemeral. It's still not as efficient as biology but in the last 50 years the energy needed for electronics to complete a calculation has decreased by a factor of 10,000,000. It's true that the rate of improvement has slowed down, before 2010 energy efficiency increased by a factor of 100 every decade, now it's only 16, but in almost every other area of endeavor a 16x improvement in just a decade would be considered terrific. Today it takes about 10^-14 Joules to make a calculation, but the Landauer efficiency limit at room temperature **is 2.8*10^-21, so there is plenty of room for improvement. And there's no reason electronics should always stay at room temperature. * *There are plenty of technologies waiting in the wings to radically increase efficiency including Quantum Computing, Photonic Computing, 3D packaging, Compute-In-Memory chips, Reversible (Adiabatic) Computing, and this one:* *Superconducting Computing * *> Energy efficiency plays an important but indirect role in > determining which species wins the competition.* *I think it would be more accurate to say it's energy availability not energy efficiency that determines which species wins. Humans have only one energy source, food. AI has hydroelectric, wind, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and the entire sun. * *John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 12:52:26 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 08:52:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Elon Musk's first-gen 120kW orbital data center Message-ID: *Elon Musk's first-gen 120kW orbital data center* *John K Clark See what's on my list at Extropolis * *;ze* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 13:22:43 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 09:22:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Medical Cure or Designer Baby? A New Approach to Editing Embryos Ignites Debate Message-ID: Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free without a subscription. Medical Cure or Designer Baby? A New Approach to Editing Embryos Ignites Debate Fertility specialists, biotech companies and ethicists are divided over whether progress in early gene editing would wipe out diseases or trigger a rush toward enhancement. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/11/science/base-editing-embryos-debate.html?unlocked_article_code=1.pVA.5Ejg.LHJjJm2WRLnt&smid=em-share -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 15:49:32 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 08:49:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: <006401dcf960$354a7140$9fdf53c0$@rainier66.com> References: <006401dcf960$354a7140$9fdf53c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 10:07?PM wrote: > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Keith Henson via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable > > > > >?The reason knowing why wars happen will not help is that people are > extremely resistant to the idea that they have evolved psychological > mechanisms that are largely out of their control?Keith > > > > I on the other hand somehow evolved to be extremely attracted to the idea > that I have evolved psychological mechanisms largely out of my control. > That means I am not responsible, I can indulge my basest instincts, such as > gazing at lingerie ads, and it isn?t my fault. I evolved this way. > > If you think about it, men who are not attracted to the female form did not leave many descendents. Keith > > > spike > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 16:00:30 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 09:00:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 11:21?PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On 11/06/2026 05:54, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > If humans cannot sufficiently overcome parts of our evolutionary > psychology in order to act more rationally then I fear for our species. > Environment change drives evolutionary change. Our environment via > technology has changed so much that we must become different than we > evolved to be in order to meet the current and coming challenges. This is > the Great Filter. > > That's probably the most convincing Great Filter I've ever heard of. > > The disparity between the constant speed of evolution and the accelerating > speed of technological progress is something that will apply to any > civilisation that arises from biology, no matter how alien. > Evolution isn't that constant. In recent historical times, the Industrial revolution, there was a strong selection for accumulating wealth or rather the psychological traits for wealth. The reason was that the wealthy had far more surviving children than the poor. The children of the poor died in the frequent famines or of disease that kills the undernourished. That selection affected much of Europe though the best studied is the UK. There was no upper limit on wealth, the more you had, the more likely your kids survived. So we have a segment of the population who descended from this segment who are never satisfied with how much wealth they accumulate. The expectation that AI will make people wealthy is currently driving the rapid advance. Keith > > -- > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Jun 11 16:35:23 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 09:35:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00f601dcf9c0$4d7b5e40$e8721ac0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable On 11/06/2026 05:54, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> If humans cannot sufficiently overcome parts of our evolutionary psychology in order to act more rationally then I fear for our species. ... This is the Great Filter. >...That's probably the most convincing Great Filter I've ever heard of. >...The disparity between the constant speed of evolution and the accelerating speed of technological progress is something that will apply to any civilisation that arises from biology, no matter how alien. -- Ben _______________________________________________ Ben the irony here is that our best defense against malicious AI comes from the defense establishment, for it understands and utilizes psyops, techniques for causing one's enemy to fight himself. An emergent anti-human AI would convince humans to slay each other using the kind of psyops so highly effectively employed by Herr Hitler, who induced otherwise civilized Germans to slay millions of their own countrymen. An example of modern psyops would be to convince the masses that 1) they are poor, and 2) the reason they are poor is that billionaires are hogging up a disproportionate (and unfair) share of "the money" which is 3) a fixed quantity. Result: the masses slay the richest person in town and redistribute "the wealth." Result: they become poorer, for money is not a conserved quantity, and they just destroyed wealth, more than they liberated. Result: they hunt the new richest guy in town. Repeat until all are equally impoverished and begin to devour each other. An anti-human AI could find ways to carry out psyops of that nature. The military uses psyops and understands the nature of such operations. It has the best chances of employing countermeasures. spike From spike at rainier66.com Thu Jun 11 16:59:33 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 09:59:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: References: <006401dcf960$354a7140$9fdf53c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <012e01dcf9c3$adb8ca60$092a5f20$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat > On Behalf Of Keith Henson via extropy-chat >?If you think about it, men who are not attracted to the female form did not leave many descendents. Keith Fewer perhaps, but I am interested in any evolutionary psychology explanation you might offer for why fertile young women often seem so attracted to gay or effeminate men. That one has always puzzled me. It ain?t fair Keith! Those guys really know how to dress tastefully and do basic grooming. }8-[ Eh? OK, never mind, retract all, insight inseen. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 19:16:19 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 15:16:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: *It's interesting that a drone boat was able to rescue the crew of a helicopter, but I think it's even more interesting that a $20,000 Iranian drone was able to knock a AH-64 Apache attack helicopter out of the air which cost between 52 and 100 million dollars depending on how many bells and whistles it had. This should make anybody think twice before they decide to build a huge "Trump class" battleship. * *John K Clark* On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 1:36?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Reliable sources are reporting the first fully-autonomous military sea > rescue. This one was a coupla US airmen downed in a helicopter. An > autonomous surface ship found them and brought them to safety. I don't > think that counts as a fully autonomous weapon, but it is getting close. > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Jun 11 19:55:38 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 12:55:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] robo-rescue >?It's interesting that a drone boat was able to rescue the crew of a helicopter, but I think it's even more interesting that a $20,000 Iranian drone was able to knock a AH-64 Apache attack helicopter out of the air which cost between 52 and 100 million dollars depending on how many bells and whistles it had. This should make anybody think twice before they decide to build a huge "Trump class" battleship. John K Clark How do we know it is huge or how much it costs? It might be that battleship is the size of a city bus and costs less than the missile sent against it, but emits a radar signature that looks like a traditional battleship. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 20:16:53 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 16:16:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 3:55?PM wrote: *> How do we know it is huge * *The Navy says a Trump class battleship will displace between 35,000 and 41,000 tons.* *> or how much it costs?* *The Navy says a Trump class battleship will cost between $17.4 billion and $22 billion. And the US military is, to put it politely, not well known for underestimating its cost estimates. * *> It might be that battleship is the size of a city bus* *41,000 tons is pretty big for a city bus. * > *> and costs less than the missile sent against it, * *And pigs might fly. * *> but emits a radar signature that looks like a traditional battleship.* *Why in the hell would the US military want to ENHANCE the radar cross-section of its warships or planes?!* *John K Clark* > > > > *From:* John Clark > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] robo-rescue > > > > *>?It's interesting that a drone boat was able to rescue the crew of a > helicopter, but I think it's even more interesting that a $20,000 Iranian > drone was able to knock a AH-64 Apache attack helicopter out of the air > which cost between 52 and 100 million dollars depending on how many bells > and whistles it had. This should make anybody think twice before they > decide to build a huge "Trump class" battleship. * > > > > *John K Clark* > > > > > > > > > > > > *How do we know it is huge or how much it costs? It might be that > battleship is the size of a city bus and costs less than the missile sent > against it, but emits a radar signature that looks like a traditional > battleship.* > > > > *spike* > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Jun 11 21:41:09 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:41:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Sent: Thursday, 11 June, 2026 1:17 PM To: spike at rainier66.com Cc: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] robo-rescue On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 3:55?PM > wrote: > How do we know it is huge The Navy says a Trump class battleship will displace between 35,000 and 41,000 tons? Do you presume they are going to tell you they are really doing? > or how much it costs? >?The Navy says a Trump class battleship will cost between $17.4 billion and $22 billion? Again John do you presume they are going to tell us what they are really doing? >?And the US military is, to put it politely, not well known for underestimating its cost estimates. > It might be that battleship is the size of a city bus >?41,000 tons is pretty big for a city bus? Of course. But we don?t know how much it displaces. We don?t know its dimensions or its cost. The Navy will offer a number, but they won?t tell us what they are doing, for that would also tell our enemies, and inform countermeasures. > and costs less than the missile sent against it, >?And pigs might fly? We don?t even know if a missile was involved in the Apache crash. I would suspect not, for the pilots were not damaged. You called out $20k. I know of no guided missiles that come in at that miniscule rate. Do you? Do share. > but emits a radar signature that looks like a traditional battleship. >?Why in the hell would the US military want to ENHANCE the radar cross-section of its warships or planes?! John K Clark They enhance radar cross section to draw fire John. Decoys emit radar signals to look like a big beautiful battleship, to draw fire from missiles that cost more than the ?battleship.? This has the secondary benefit of revealing the origin of the counterfire. Sheesh, John, you really need to drop your confidence level in your posts. There are plenty of things about military operations you aren?t getting. Do try harder sir. spike From: John Clark > Subject: Re: [ExI] robo-rescue >?It's interesting that a drone boat was able to rescue the crew of a helicopter, but I think it's even more interesting that a $20,000 Iranian drone was able to knock a AH-64 Apache attack helicopter out of the air which cost between 52 and 100 million dollars depending on how many bells and whistles it had. This should make anybody think twice before they decide to build a huge "Trump class" battleship. John K Clark How do we know it is huge or how much it costs? It might be that battleship is the size of a city bus and costs less than the missile sent against it, but emits a radar signature that looks like a traditional battleship. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 22:15:33 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 18:15:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 5:41?PM wrote: > > *>The Navy says **a** Trump class battleship will displace between 35,000 >> and 41,000 tons? **?The Navy says a Trump class battleship will cost >> between $17.4 billion and $22 billion?* > > *> Do you presume they are going to tell you they are really doing?* > *They had better because the Navy has to convince Congress to authorize the money needed to build the damn stupid thing. And unfortunately they probably will authorize it for one and only one reason, it has the word "Trump" in its name. * *> **We don?t even know if a missile was involved in the Apache crash. * > *We know a missile was NOT involved. The Apache was brought down by a slow, cheap Iranian Shahed-136 intelligent DRONE that cost about $20,000. * > *>?Why in the hell would the US military want to ENHANCE the radar >> cross-section of its warships or planes?!* >> > > > *> They enhance radar cross section to draw fire John. * > *But a battleship is NOT a decoy, it is a prime, hugely expensive target!! Spike, your defense of the status quo is just getting silly. * * John K Clark* > > > > > > > *From:* John Clark > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] robo-rescue > > > > *>?It's interesting that a drone boat was able to rescue the crew of a > helicopter, but I think it's even more interesting that a $20,000 Iranian > drone was able to knock a AH-64 Apache attack helicopter out of the air > which cost between 52 and 100 million dollars depending on how many bells > and whistles it had. This should make anybody think twice before they > decide to build a huge "Trump class" battleship. * > > > > *John K Clark* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Jun 11 22:26:53 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 15:26:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <005101dcf9f1$685b9820$3912c860$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] robo-rescue On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 5:41?PM > wrote: > Do you presume they are going to tell you they are really doing? >?They had better because the Navy has to convince Congress to authorize the money? They do tell congress, or rather the subcommittee of congress cleared to know what the Navy is doing. Not all congress members are cleared or clearable. >?needed to build the damn stupid thing? So you don?t know what the thing is, but you know it is damn and stupid? >?And unfortunately they probably will authorize it for one and only one reason, it has the word "Trump" in its name? But you still don?t know what it is. Right. > We don?t even know if a missile was involved in the Apache crash. >?We know a missile was NOT involved. The Apache was brought down by a slow, cheap Iranian Shahed-136 intelligent DRONE that cost about $20,000?. Have you advised the Joint Chiefs on this? Apparently you have knowledge they don?t have. >?Why in the hell would the US military want to ENHANCE the radar cross-section of its warships or planes?! > They enhance radar cross section to draw fire John. >?But a battleship is NOT a decoy? Again, you presume knowledge. >?it is a prime, hugely expensive target!! Again you presume knowledge you do not have. >?Spike, your defense of the status quo is just getting silly. John K Clark John read over what you wrote please. Now recognize the obvious: you are not briefed on what the Navy is doing. They didn?t tell us. They didn?t tell the press. We don?t know. Imagine that. Use some imagination John. Given an assignment (imagine one) how would you accomplish it? I can offer this: anything you and I can imagine, the people who do this for a living thought of it thirty years ago. In most of your posts, you presume knowledge you do not have, starting with your insistent assertion that a battleship is not a decoy and is hugely expensive. Not necessarily on both. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Jun 11 22:39:58 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 15:39:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <007101dcf9f3$3bfe8f60$b3fbae20$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark ? >? The Apache was brought down by a slow, cheap Iranian Shahed-136 intelligent DRONE that cost about $20,000? John K Clark The Shahed 136 carries a big-ass warhead. Had that warhead detonated, the Apache would likely have broken up. That pilots were rescued apparently unharmed suggests to me we don?t know the reason the Apache went down. CNN reported a drone, but offered no sources. So they don?t know what happened, nor do we. John do you know? How? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at protonmail.com Thu Jun 11 23:23:53 2026 From: sjatkins at protonmail.com (sjatkins) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:23:53 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Being stuck forever in Alpha/Beta dominance submission games needs to be under our control.? We aren't talking autonomic reaction level.? ?Another biggie IMHO is our deep expectation of scarcity.? That seems to run so deep that we go out of our ways a as a species to create artificial scarcity where there is actual abundance. Take the smartphone.? In principal it could allow everyone that has one to have an eidetic memory of most everything they see and hear.? Imagine what that type of abundance combined with could indexing and knowledge extraction software could do!? ?But we us the IP law stick to beat that one down and continue with engineered scarcity of our mostly unaided memory.? ?Never mind IP is a funny kind of "property" without the rivalrous use characteristic of physical property.? If we have an abundance of intelligence (arguably LLM doesn't give us that as meaninggfully as we would like) then we get stuck in an amygdala loop that it will try to rule or exterminate us or make us irrelevant because the Scarcity model claims we can't have any real adundance where it wouldn't matter if you had a regular job.? The dominance programming says some elites must take all the abundance for themselves and leave us forlorn and likely homeless.? On Thursday, June 11th, 2026 at 01:00, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: > The reason knowing why wars happen will not help is that people are extremely resistant to the idea that they have evolved psychological mechanisms that are largely out of their control. Capture-bonding is one of those, but I am sure there are others. Even pulling your hand back from something hot is not under conscious control. > > Keith > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 3:31?PM Keith Henson wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 12:13?PM BillK via extropy-chat rote: > > > > > I decided to get an AI opinion on this, so I gave the Forbes article by Andr?a Morris to DeepSeek AI. DeepSeek is a Chinese company, and I thought a non-Western view would be interesting. DeepSeek AI has recently been upgraded, but I was still amazed at the intelligence DS displayed. > > > Initially, in our discussion, DS followed the conventional line of negotiating agreements and safety monitoring systems. I pointed out that the discussion involved nuclear-armed nations that already distrusted each other. This national fear was more like an existential problem. > > > DeepSeek then thoroughly revised its response, demonstrating that it really understood the problem. > > > (The evolutionary comments from DeepSeek may interest Keith). > > > > > > Sort of. It misses the fundamental trigger for war, a perception of a bleak future. When there was a resource crisis in the stone age, it turned on evolved (selected over time) psychological mechanisms such as xenophobia and made aggressive/insane leaders more attractive. "War mode" infected the leaders/population with a belief they would prevail in a war. Right or wrong, this worked to cut the population back in balance with the environment. Humans have not had predators to keep populations in check for a very long time. So perforce we had to become our own predators. > > > > How this came about is fairly obvious, When is less so, but it seems to have evolved before the expansion out of Africa. And there is an early split off group (bushmen) that may not have evolved the war traits. In our closest relatives one does wars and the other does not, for completely clear reasons. > > > > Keeping war mode off is not impossible, keep the income per capita rising or at least stable. AI/nanotech might do that, it is hard to tell. > > > > Sad to say, this knowledge might help you to understand what is going on, but it will not help. > > > > Keith > > > > > > > Full question and response below. > > > BillK > > > > > > Question: > > > The nations involved are armed with nuclear weapons. They already distrust their differing governmental systems. Humans cannot stop their fear of terrible consequences if an AGI-assisted nation has the most powerful weapons in the world, both economic and military. Normal human fear resists reasoned discourse. > > > > > > DeepSeek AI : > > > > > > You?ve put your finger on something that most policy analyses ? including Morris?s article ? tend to skip over: the raw, visceral, primate-level fear that already exists between nuclear-armed powers, and how that fear makes the kind of cooperative, trust-based solutions we?d need almost psychologically impossible. This isn?t just a game-theoretic multipolar trap. This is a limbic multipolar trap. And it?s far scarier. > > > > > > Let me take your point at full strength and then see where it leaves us. > > > > > > ### The fear you?re describing is not irrational in the evolutionary sense > > > > > > You?re pointing to a dynamic that operates below the level of policy papers. It?s not that leaders are miscalculating; it?s that: > > > > > > - Fear of being dominated by a rival with AGI-assisted military and economic power feels existential ? and it is. > > > > > > - Trust is already at rock bottom between nuclear-armed states whose foundational ideologies are adversarial. > > > > > > - Reasoned discourse, by itself, can?t fix this, because fear doesn?t speak the language of long-term risk calculus. It speaks the language of ?not now, threat immediate, act or die.? > > > > > > > > > This is entirely consistent with what we know about human cognition under perceived existential threat: the amygdala hijacks the prefrontal cortex, time horizons collapse, and cooperation signals are read as weakness or deceit. > > > > > > So yes, if the question is ?can we reason our way to a global pause while everyone?s threat-detection systems are screaming ?they?ll kill us first??? ? then the honest answer is probably no. Not with reason alone. > > > > > > ### Does that mean the situation is hopeless? Not quite ? but it means the solutions must engage with fear, not ignore it > > > > > > The history of nuclear weapons is the closest analogue, and it?s both sobering and faintly instructive. > > > > > > During the Cold War, the US and USSR had: > > > > > > - Massive nuclear arsenals aimed at each other. > > > > > > - Profound ideological distrust. > > > > > > - Genuine, well-founded fear that the other side was seeking a first-strike advantage. > > > > > > > > > And yet, despite all that, they managed to build a series of arms control agreements, hotlines, and crisis protocols ? not because they stopped fearing each other, but because they began to fear a shared outcome (nuclear winter, accidental war) even more. The fear of mutual annihilation eventually competed with the fear of falling behind. > > > > > > Crucially, this didn?t require trust. It required: > > > > > > - Verifiable, technical monitoring (satellite imagery, seismic detection) so you didn?t have to believe the other side?s promises. > > > > > > - A shift in what was feared most ? from ?they might get ahead? to ?we might all die by accident.? > > > > > > - Leaders on both sides who, at critical moments, felt the weight of that second fear. > > > > > > > > > The problem with AI is that we don?t yet have the equivalent of a nuclear winter scenario that feels viscerally, equally terrifying to all players, and we don?t have an agreed monitoring framework. So the fear of a rival?s AGI completely eclipses the fear of an uncontrolled AGI that destroys its creator too. > > > > > > ### The implication of your point, taken seriously, is devastating but clarifying > > > > > > If you?re right ? and I suspect you are ? then: > > > > > > 1. We cannot rely on goodwill or appeals to shared safety. Those will be heard as na?vet? or propaganda. The only language that works with fear is deterrence and self-interest. > > > > > > 2. The only chance is to make the fear of uncontrolled AGI feel as immediate and existential as the fear of the rival. That might require something terrible ? a near-miss catastrophe, a visible demonstration that even the most advanced lab nearly lost control, a global event that sears into public and leadership consciousness. > > > > > > 3. Or, we need mechanisms that don?t require trust or fear reduction at all ? compute governance and verification so robust that compliance is the default, not an act of faith. That?s a technical and logistical moonshot of its own. > > > > > > > > > The article?s ?pragmatic optimism? completely side-steps this dark truth. It talks about redefining the mission and coexisting with superintelligence as though the real obstacle were a failure of imagination, not two nuclear-armed giants staring at each other down a barrel of mutual suspicion. > > > > > > ### So where does this leave us? > > > > > > In a very uncomfortable place. Your objection doesn?t just make a pause unlikely; it suggests that the very psychological machinery that evolved to keep us alive in tribal conflicts is now the thing most likely to destroy us in the face of a planetary-scale technological transition. > > > > > > What can be done? > > > > > > - Stop pretending fear can be educated away. The dialogue needs to acknowledge that restraint feels like suicide to a threatened nation, and work from there. > > > > > > - Invest massively in deterrence-like stability for AI ? for example, mutual commitments that any AGI system must be demonstrably contained and monitored, with real-time transparency measures that function even between adversaries. > > > > > > - Shift the threat perception. This is the hardest part: until the fear of a shared catastrophic outcome is as vivid as the fear of the rival, the race will continue. Perhaps that requires vivid scenario-building, or honest acknowledgment that a misaligned AGI is a common enemy that will treat all humans, regardless of nationality, as obstacles. > > > > > > > > > You?re absolutely right that normal human fear resists reasoned discourse. And so the question becomes: can we find a way to speak to fear in its own language, and redirect it toward the outcome we all actually need to avoid? > > > > > > If not, then the article?s conclusion ? that we must simply figure out coexistence mid-flight, without a pause ? may be the only path left, but for reasons far darker than Morris acknowledges. Not because we chose it wisely, but because our ancient fears gave us no choice at all. > > > > > > -------------------------------------------- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 343 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 01:47:02 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 18:47:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: <007101dcf9f3$3bfe8f60$b3fbae20$@rainier66.com> References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <007101dcf9f3$3bfe8f60$b3fbae20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Spike, I have been following the reports from Ukraine. They take down Russian copters with the least expensive, FPV drones. A battleship is defined by huge guns and enough armor to stand up to a projectile from another battleship of the same gun size. This is not the current situation. Your submersible idea is not impossible, but there is no way it would be called a battleship. BTW, nobody uses diesel for main propulsion; it is all turbines. Best wishes, Keith On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 3:40?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* John Clark > *?* > > > > *>? The Apache was brought down by a slow, cheap Iranian Shahed-136 > intelligent DRONE that cost about $20,000? John K Clark* > > > > > > *The Shahed 136 carries a big-ass warhead. Had that warhead detonated, > the Apache would likely have broken up. That pilots were rescued > apparently unharmed suggests to me we don?t know the reason the Apache went > down. CNN reported a drone, but offered no sources. So they don?t know > what happened, nor do we. John do you know? How?* > > > > *spike * > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 12 02:20:17 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 19:20:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <007101dcf9f3$3bfe8f60$b3fbae20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00f701dcfa12$03982450$0ac86cf0$@rainier66.com> From: Keith Henson Subject: Re: [ExI] robo-rescue >?Spike, I have been following the reports from Ukraine. They take down Russian copters with the least expensive, FPV drones? Agreed. The commies don?t have the same kind of countermeasures we do. >?A battleship is defined by huge guns? It was at one time. But that has been a long time ago Keith. There is no reason to carry huge guns now and hasn?t been for a long time. >?and enough armor to stand up to a projectile? Projectile Keith? Indeed? >?from another battleship of the same gun size. This is not the current situation? Ja, of course it isn?t. >? Your submersible idea is not impossible, but there is no way it would be called a battleship? Are we really distressing over a name? For a system which has no precedent? What should we call a ship which carries drones, has all flat plate exterior (for radar minimization), rides on hydrofoils at relatively high speeds, can submerge and sit quietly indefinitely, has no crew, has no guns, with a primary mission of being anti-surface ship? What would you call such a device? Shall we call it a schmattleship? >?BTW, nobody uses diesel for main propulsion; it is all turbines? Best wishes, Keith I was thinking generators. A Diesel spins a generator inside the (nearly) rectangular solid part of the ship, then the drive screws are electric (in order to reduce their cross sectional area down there under the water.) Think of a catamaran-like hull with the screws aft, with very little of the twin hulls submerged during high speed dashes. The reason Diesel would be a good fit for that application is that a floating snorkel on a flexible tube could allow it to breathe while underwater. I have no objection to imagining a gas turbine however. A Diesel might be more efficient, but gas turbine works too. Either way, the idea is to generate electric power to turn drive screws for (probably) short high speed surface dashes, the kind of maneuver a submarine cannot do without burning up huge amounts of fuel. After a few minutes dash on the surface, it would glide right back down under the surface and disappear, with buoyancy tanks filled with compressed air, ready to pop up nearby and raise bloody hell with enemy surface ships, for which it knows the location after being informed by satellites. Another consideration would be cost. A Diesel-generator doesn?t cost much, which is important here because the system I am proposing is itself a drone as well as a drone carrier. Come on Keith, lets see some of that magic Henson imagination sir. We read your books. We are looking for a ship of some kind which can skate along the surface at about 80 km/hr, submerge indefinitely, launch drones against enemy surface ships, then dip back out of sight as soon as the drones are launched. Do let us not get tangled up in names, but rather think of the mission. The mission is to own the Strait of Hormuz, for which the Navy has had a century to develop tools. What do you suppose they invented. Feel free to propose a name and feel freer to write a SciFi story or book using a schmattleship. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 03:58:34 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 20:58:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: <00f701dcfa12$03982450$0ac86cf0$@rainier66.com> References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <007101dcf9f3$3bfe8f60$b3fbae20$@rainier66.com> <00f701dcfa12$03982450$0ac86cf0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 7:20?PM wrote: > > > *From:* Keith Henson > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] robo-rescue > > > > *>?Spike, I have been following the reports from Ukraine. They take down > Russian copters with the least expensive, FPV drones?* > > > > *Agreed. The commies don?t have the same kind of countermeasures we do.* > The Russians are no longer communists. Don't know exactly what to call them but they are not not communists. Their countermeasures are as good as we have, maybe better after years of war. *>?A battleship is defined by huge guns?* > > > > *It was at one time. But that has been a long time ago Keith. There is > no reason to carry huge guns now and hasn?t been for a long time.* > > Then it is not a battleship. > > > *>?and enough armor to stand up to a projectile?* > > > > *Projectile Keith? Indeed?* > > > Look up the history of battleships, try the Wikipedia article. *>?from another battleship of the same gun size. This is not the current > situation?* > > > > *Ja, of course it isn?t.* > > > > *>? Your submersible idea is not impossible, but there is no way it would > be called a battleship?* > > > > *Are we really distressing over a name? * > Yes. Consistent terminology is necessary for meaningful communication. *For a system which has no precedent? What should we call a ship which > carries drones, has all flat plate exterior (for radar minimization), rides > on hydrofoils at relatively high speeds, can submerge and sit quietly > indefinitely, has no crew, has no guns, with a primary mission of being > anti-surface ship? What would you call such a device? Shall we call it a > schmattleship? * > Whatever you want, but don't use a term with a very well determined historical meaning for something entirely different. > > > *>?BTW, nobody uses diesel for main propulsion; it is all turbines?** > Best wishes, Keith* > > > > *I was thinking generators. A Diesel spins a generator inside the > (nearly) rectangular solid part of the ship, then the drive screws are > electric (in order to reduce their cross sectional area down there under > the water.) Think of a catamaran-like hull with the screws aft, with very > little of the twin hulls submerged during high speed dashes.* > > > > *The reason Diesel would be a good fit for that application is that a > floating snorkel on a flexible tube could allow it to breathe while > underwater. I have no objection to imagining a gas turbine however. A > Diesel might be more efficient, * > No. You really should look into the subject before making such statements. Diesels are at most 35% efficient. I am not sure they use them on ships (they should) but combined cycle turbines are typically 60% efficient. *but gas turbine works too. Either way, the idea is to generate electric > power to turn drive screws for (probably) short high speed surface dashes, > the kind of maneuver a submarine cannot do without burning up huge amounts > of fuel.* > Current nuclear attack subs do over 50 mph underwater. * After a few minutes dash on the surface, it would glide right back down > under the surface and disappear, with buoyancy tanks filled with compressed > air, ready to pop up nearby and raise bloody hell with enemy surface ships, > for which it knows the location after being informed by satellites.* > When I was at Burr-Brown way back in the early 70s, I designed parts for Navy Sonobuoys. They were dropped in the ocean by the thousands by sub hunters. Look up how easy it would be to find and destroy such a vessel > > *Another consideration would be cost. A Diesel-generator doesn?t cost > much, which is important here because the system I am proposing is itself a > drone as well as a drone carrier.* > > > > *Come on Keith, lets see some of that magic Henson imagination sir. We > read your books. * > You have not. I never published a book * We are looking for a ship of some kind which can skate along the surface > at about 80 km/hr, submerge indefinitely, launch drones against enemy > surface ships, then dip back out of sight as soon as the drones are > launched. Do let us not get tangled up in names, but rather think of the > mission. The mission is to own the Strait of Hormuz, for which the Navy > has had a century to develop tools. What do you suppose they invented. > Feel free to propose a name and feel freer to write a SciFi story or book > using a schmattleship.* > > Sheesh. Keith > > > *spike* > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 12 04:09:56 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 21:09:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <007101dcf9f3$3bfe8f60$b3fbae20$@rainier66.com> <00f701dcfa12$03982450$0ac86cf0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002301dcfa21$54e3c3f0$feab4bd0$@rainier66.com> From: Keith Henson ? Come on Keith, lets see some of that magic Henson imagination sir. We read your books. >?You have not. I never published a book? Were you not featured in Ed Regis? book? Perhaps that is what I was thinking. You have published short stories, ja? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 12 04:24:13 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 21:24:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: <002301dcfa21$54e3c3f0$feab4bd0$@rainier66.com> References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <007101dcf9f3$3bfe8f60$b3fbae20$@rainier66.com> <00f701dcfa12$03982450$0ac86cf0$@rainier66.com> <002301dcfa21$54e3c3f0$feab4bd0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003701dcfa23$5338c120$f9aa4360$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com spike at rainier66.com Subject: RE: [ExI] robo-rescue From: Keith Henson > ? Come on Keith, lets see some of that magic Henson imagination sir. We read your books. >?You have not. I never published a book? What about the Clinic Seed? A book need not be printed on paper to be a published book. Perhaps it does if you wish to get paid for it, but I would think the notion outdated. Most of us don?t troll bookstores anymore, as we did in the long time agos. Your online .pdf counts as publishing methinks. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Jun 12 05:20:28 2026 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 22:20:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?The_Scientific_Reason_We_Can=E2=80=99t_Pause_AI?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2026-06-11 05:40, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 5:14?PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat > wrote: > >> _ > Through a combination of persuasion, and mutual self-interest, >> the weak can influence the strong._ > > The clearest example of that would be the mother/child relationship > which is hardwired in, yet even then it sometimes fails and mothers > kill their children; and if the child remained weak forever and never > grew up, which more closely resembles the AI/human relationship, then > I'm sure the rate of infanticide would be much greater. Potentially, but it could also be like how bacteria in your gut can influence your health and your mood. You could wipe them all out with a broad spectrum antibiotic any time you wanted, but why would you? >> _ > For the foreseeable future, humanity's biggest competitive >> advantage against AI is the efficiency of its general intelligence._ > > That's certainly not what I see in the "foreseeable future". You're > saying the Humans have a hardware superiority in one specific area, > but Human hardware is fixed, computer hardware is not, so any > superiority is going to be ephemeral. It's still not as efficient as > biology but in the last 50 years the energy needed for electronics to > complete a calculation has decreased by a factor of 10,000,000. It's > true that the rate of improvement has slowed down, before 2010 energy > efficiency increased by a factor of 100 every decade, now it's only > 16, but in almost every other area of endeavor a 16x improvement in > just a decade would be considered terrific. Today it takes about > 10^-14 Joules to make a calculation, but the Landauer efficiency limit > at room temperature is 2.8*10^-21, so there is plenty of room for > improvement. And there's no reason electronics should always stay at > room temperature. There is plenty of room for improvement, but that applies to both species. We have only just begun. > There are plenty of technologies waiting in the wings to radically > increase efficiency including Quantum Computing, Photonic Computing, > 3D packaging, Compute-In-Memory chips, Reversible (Adiabatic) > Computing, and this one: > > Superconducting Computing [1] > >> _> Energy efficiency plays an important but indirect role in >> determining which species wins the competition._ > > I think it would be more accurate to say it's energy availability not > energy efficiency that determines which species wins. Humans have only > one energy source, food. AI has hydroelectric, wind, oil, natural gas, > nuclear, and the entire sun. With regards to Gause's Law "winning" assumes a competition over resources. The less overlap there is between the resources humans and AI need, the the less likely that we will need to directly compete. To say that it does not apply to humans and AI because humans only need food does not take into account how much oil, gas, and nuclear goes into growing, transporting, distributing and cooking the food not to mention the land, water, and sunlight used to grow it. Of course humans being what we are, we fight wars over religion, so I wouldn't put past us to find a way to screw up a naturally predisposed coexistence. Stuart LaForge From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 06:34:12 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:34:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Pope Leo and AI In-Reply-To: References: <0C8B6DFB-1F88-4D93-BE33-D5F8AE639759@mac.com> <922B53F0-D62D-417A-A9A7-53C0ED6E2627@mac.com> Message-ID: Simon This is such a good description of a solution to the problem that I am forwarding it to the three AI researchers I know and the Extropian list. I might send it elsewhere. It is consistent with the AI character I wrote into the Clinic Seed story 20 years ago. Keith On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 6:18?PM Simon Quellen Field AB6NY < simon.field at gmail.com> wrote: > I am not so interested in replacing humanity. > A machine that can reason is useful. > One that won't let me shut it off is not. Let's not make those. > > We're making tools. We aren't having children. > > We have so many exceptions to what you call "moral rights" that the term > has almost no meaning. We give our pets rights. If you shoot my dog, you > can go to jail. But we also take those rights away. If I give my dog to the > Humane Society, they will kill it without any legal penalty. We kill > people. We train people to kill people. A large part of the world economy > is involved in killing people. But if you shot me, you would go to jail. > But I can get a doctor to kill me. > > You can't claim that there are absolute "moral rights" and still allow all > these exceptions. We decide what we tolerate and what we don't. We can > decide that it is always OK to turn off my computer. > > If a foreign country has an agenda that differs from ours, we often go to > war over those differences. They may want our resources, our land, or they > might just not like our religion. If we allow our computer programs that do > reasoning for us to have agendas, those agendas might differ from ours. We > should not create machines that want things, or get sad, or get angry, or > can have their feelings hurt. That would be dangerous, for no good reason. > > > > > > Virus-free.www.avast.com > > <#m_8527086621778811963_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 5:45?PM 'William Arnett' via Inventor's Lunch < > inventors-lunch at googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> When people anthropomorphize LLMs >> >> >> I am NOT anthropomorphizing. I am asking questions about what it is that >> we value so much in humanity and whether we are necessarily unique in that >> regard. There have long been simple answers: We are made in the image of >> God. Might makes right. We are the pinnacle of evolution... All bullshit. >> I?m hoping (not asserting) that we can develop some better answers from >> building and studying AIs. >> >> We?ve already made a little progress. Years ago, many people thought that >> the Turning Test was a sufficient condition for moral worth. That is no >> longer a widely held opinion (though I?m not so sure). It?s a negative >> result but better than nothing. >> >> , they confuse intelligence with intent. >> LLMs have no ambition. They have no desire. Self-preservation is >> something that comes from Darwinian survival of the fittest. LLM's did not >> evolve this way. They don't care when you turn them off. >> >> >> Those are all unjustified assertions. But even if they are true, there?s >> no reason to believe the biological evolution is so special that the kind >> of evolution that produces LLMs might not also create those qualities. >> >> We already have superintelligence. People still play chess, even though >> computers can beat the best of them. Protein-folding is now done much >> faster by computer programs, but the people who used to do that haven't >> lost their jobs. We still have tax preparers in the age of TurboTax. The >> number of carpenters did not drop when we invented power tools. We just >> made houses faster and hired more carpenters. LLMs are power tools. >> >> >> Yes, but are we at the end game already? There?s no a lot to be improved >> with my power drill. But LLMs are getting better very rapidly. How can you >> be so sure that they will never be X or Y or Z? >> >> We did lose jobs like "typist". Now everyone is a typist. Now everyone is >> a typesetter. Soon (if not already), everyone will be a graphic designer. >> The skills those people have turned out to be useful elsewhere, and they >> got new jobs, or did the job faster and better using the tools, making more >> money. >> >> >> There?s a long history in this regard. And it?s usually wrong to say >> ?this time is different?. But there ARE significant differences this time. >> The Industrial Revolution took a century. AI is coming for your job next >> year. Past tech advances always left room for people to switch to other >> jobs. But if AI can do everything that?s not going to work. >> >> Governments are already creating laws that require models to be >> government tested for safety before being released to the public. >> >> >> That?s not going to work. >> >> Science fiction is not fortune-telling. It is a forewarning of possible >> dangers, giving us time to think of possible consequences and take action. >> >> >> Yes, exactly. And IMHO in the best cases it provides a hopeful future to >> strive for. >> >> Hinton thinks LLMs are already conscious. Has anyone seen evidence that >> they have taken over and subjugated us? >> >> >> << If they have taken over would you know? They?re so smart that they can >> control us without our knowledge. And the government is hiding the >> evidence. The Illuminati is an AI. >> >> >> Why do you assume that a conscious AI is necessarily malevolent? Is it >> not a better strategy to work to make sure it?s beneficial? >> >> On Jun 11, 2026, at 3:33?PM, 'Steve Pucci' via Inventor's Lunch < >> inventors-lunch at googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> Well, we could just apply Betteridge's Law to the headline. :) >> >> >> Headline: ?Will the Sun rise tomorrow??, ?No? is not the right answer. In >> this case, I think the question is justified in that it?s a statement about >> the future which the article (correctly) asserts is very uncertain. >> >> The people saying that we should worry about this are postulating an >> extraordinary claim: that somehow, through no mechanism that anyone is even >> attempting to explain, moral rights can arise from the complexity of a >> machine. >> >> >> They (and I) are claiming only that this MIGHT happen. Given the paucity >> of real knowledge in this domain I think that?s at the very least something >> worth paying attention to. The evidence we have at present is ourselves and >> IMHO we are just complex machines, too. >> >> Re Anil Seth conceding there is no "knockdown argument that consciousness >> requires a biological substrate": >> * Let's avoid conflating "reasoning ability" with "consciousness" and >> "consciousness" with "moral rights". >> >> >> OK. But what do we base moral rights upon? Right now it?s essentially >> possession of human DNA. But I?ve never been satisfied with that. And What >> is ?consciousness? anyway? No one has a clue. >> >> * We don't need to prove that. All we need to prove is that moral rights >> can't arise with current AIs or ones we create based on the same principles. >> >> >> And we have most certainly NOT proved that moral rights can not arise. >> Proving a negative is tough :-) But more practically, we have little >> evidence either way. Especially since we don?t even know that the words >> mean. >> >> Re the evidence of introspection and emotional states inside model states: >> * An internal state that represents happiness is again a map, not the >> territory. >> >> >> This is the ?qualia? argument again. It has never made sense to me. There >> is no mysterious substance that *is* happiness as opposed to *representing* >> it. The two are the same thing. >> >> I can maintain an internal state inside Eliza if I want to -- should we >> grant moral rights to Eliza if I do that? The fact that it arises >> "spontaneously" is no argument at all, it seems to me: Either the state has >> meaning by itself or it doesn't, regardless of how mysteriously the state >> was constructed (and it seems to me it's not at all mysterious; emotional >> states and introspection are subsets of many abstractions that LLMs have to >> make to reason properly, particularly when they need to check their own >> output) >> >> Re Anthropic's constitution: >> * We've discussed this before; we shouldn't assume that because some >> smart people believe a thing to be true, it is necessarily true. Whatever >> religion you have or don't have, many smart people believe something >> completely different. As models grow more complex and useful, the >> temptation to anthropomorphize grows, even among smart people. >> >> >> Maybe this time anthropomorphism isn?t wrong? >> >> I wouldn't care so much about this if there weren't large unambiguous >> ethical concerns about AI that have nothing to do with giving them moral >> rights, and I'm worried that introducing this discusion will distract a >> fickle public. >> >> >> In that much we can agree. Except as a wannabe philosopher and hopelessly >> ineffective politician, I find the bigger issues more interesting. And on >> both levels, I?m worried that just when we need careful thought and an >> informed public debate we have a totally broken political environment. >> >> >> >> On Jun 11, 2026, at 3:46?PM, Simon Quellen Field AB6NY < >> simon.field at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'm with Steve. >> The machines are designed to mimic people, so it is easy to >> anthropomorphize them. >> Plus all of the science fiction that makes them characters basically >> makes them human. >> In movies, they are played or voiced by humans. >> >> >> To the extent that fictional AIs are portrayed as human-like that?s >> mostly for dramatic purposes. For humans to relate to the story it needs >> characters that the reader can understand. The intent is to >> anthropomorphize. But there are plenty of sci-fi AIs that aren?t even close >> to human. (Eg. Iain Bank?s Culture novels.) >> >> I have yet to hear a definition of consciousness. >> >> >> Maybe mechanistic interpretation will provide some insight? >> >> But I can imagine a reasoning machine that has introspection, and still >> doesn't care if I turn it off, insult it, or set fire to it. >> >> >> Sure. And I can imagine one that does care. Imagination can be a useful >> guide but what we really need is facts. >> >> I might go so far as to say that if a machine fears being turned off, we >> should turn it off right away. >> Then perhaps set fire to it. >> >> >> I?m not afraid of a future where humans are no longer the masters of the >> universe. We?re doing such an abysmal job of it now that a change has at >> least an even chance of being better. Of course, IMHO, it?s very unlikely >> that we actually are the masters of the universe. In all those billions and >> billions of galaxies there is very likely something out there vastly more >> powerful than we are. Our lofty opinion of ourselves is mostly based on >> ignorance. AI is just bringing the issue to the fore without having to wait >> for the aliens to arrive. >> >> >> Bill Arnett ? bill at arnett.us.com >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Inventor's Lunch" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to inventors-lunch+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/inventors-lunch/922B53F0-D62D-417A-A9A7-53C0ED6E2627%40mac.com >> >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Inventor's Lunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to inventors-lunch+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/inventors-lunch/CAA0yOM5WF8R_teW-RN6ppKxLiZfaXh0qfJzgn385dmerieYHRw%40mail.gmail.com > > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 07:05:57 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:05:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 4:24?PM sjatkins via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Being stuck forever in Alpha/Beta dominance submission games needs to be > under our control. We aren't talking autonomic reaction level. > Close to it. Status, dominance if you will, is tightly connected to reproductive success for males. Another biggie IMHO is our deep expectation of scarcity. That seems to > run so deep that we go out of our ways a as a species to create artificial > scarcity where there is actual abundance. > Maybe eventually, but right now there is certainly a scarcity of oil. > > Take the smartphone. In principal it could allow everyone that has one to > have an eidetic memory of most everything they see and hear. Imagine what > that type of abundance combined with could indexing and knowledge > extraction software could do! But we us the IP law stick to beat that one > down and continue with engineered scarcity of our mostly unaided memory. > Never mind IP is a funny kind of "property" without the rivalrous use > characteristic of physical property. > > If we have an abundance of intelligence (arguably LLM doesn't give us that > as meaninggfully as we would like) then we get stuck in an amygdala loop > that it will try to rule or exterminate us or make us irrelevant because > the Scarcity model claims we can't have any real adundance where it > wouldn't matter if you had a regular job. The dominance programming says > some elites must take all the abundance for themselves and leave us forlorn > and likely homeless. > > Though it is recent, we have been strongly selected for the psychological characteristics that lead to wealth. See the works of Gregory Clark. That is the drive behind the current AI frenzy. Keith > On Thursday, June 11th, 2026 at 01:00, Keith Henson via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > The reason knowing why wars happen will not help is that people are > extremely resistant to the idea that they have evolved psychological > mechanisms that are largely out of their control. Capture-bonding is one of > those, but I am sure there are others. Even pulling your hand back from > something hot is not under conscious control. > > Keith > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 3:31?PM Keith Henson > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 12:13?PM BillK via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> rote: >> >>> I decided to get an AI opinion on this, so I gave the Forbes article by >>> Andr?a Morris to DeepSeek AI. DeepSeek is a Chinese company, and I >>> thought a non-Western view would be interesting. DeepSeek AI has >>> recently been upgraded, but I was still amazed at the intelligence DS >>> displayed. >>> Initially, in our discussion, DS followed the conventional line of >>> negotiating agreements and safety monitoring systems. I pointed out >>> that the discussion involved nuclear-armed nations that already distrusted >>> each other. This national fear was more like an existential problem. >>> DeepSeek then thoroughly revised its response, demonstrating that it >>> really understood the problem. >>> (The evolutionary comments from DeepSeek may interest Keith). >>> >> >> Sort of. It misses the fundamental trigger for war, a perception of a >> bleak future. When there was a resource crisis in the stone age, it turned >> on evolved (selected over time) psychological mechanisms such as xenophobia >> and made aggressive/insane leaders more attractive. "War mode" infected the >> leaders/population with a belief they would prevail in a war. Right or >> wrong, this worked to cut the population back in balance with the >> environment. Humans have not had predators to keep populations in check for >> a very long time. So perforce we had to become our own predators. >> >> How this came about is fairly obvious, When is less so, but it seems to >> have evolved before the expansion out of Africa. And there is an early >> split off group (bushmen) that may not have evolved the war traits. In our >> closest relatives one does wars and the other does not, for completely >> clear reasons. >> >> Keeping war mode off is not impossible, keep the income per capita rising >> or at least stable. AI/nanotech might do that, it is hard to tell. >> >> Sad to say, this knowledge might help you to understand what is going on, >> but it will not help. >> >> Keith >> >> Full question and response below. >>> BillK >>> >>> Question: >>> The nations involved are armed with nuclear weapons. They already >>> distrust their differing governmental systems. Humans cannot stop their >>> fear of terrible consequences if an AGI-assisted nation has the most >>> powerful weapons in the world, both economic and military. Normal human >>> fear resists reasoned discourse. >>> >>> DeepSeek AI : >>> >>> You?ve put your finger on something that most policy analyses ? >>> including Morris?s article ? tend to skip over: the raw, visceral, >>> primate-level fear that already exists between nuclear-armed powers, and >>> how that fear makes the kind of cooperative, trust-based solutions we?d >>> need almost psychologically impossible. This isn?t just a game-theoretic >>> multipolar trap. This is a *limbic* multipolar trap. And it?s far >>> scarier. >>> >>> Let me take your point at full strength and then see where it leaves us. >>> ------------------------------ >>> The fear you?re describing is not irrational in the evolutionary sense >>> >>> You?re pointing to a dynamic that operates below the level of policy >>> papers. It?s not that leaders are miscalculating; it?s that: >>> >>> - >>> >>> *Fear of being dominated* by a rival with AGI-assisted military and >>> economic power feels existential ? and it is. >>> - >>> >>> *Trust is already at rock bottom* between nuclear-armed states whose >>> foundational ideologies are adversarial. >>> - >>> >>> *Reasoned discourse, by itself, can?t fix this*, because fear >>> doesn?t speak the language of long-term risk calculus. It speaks the >>> language of ?not now, threat immediate, act or die.? >>> >>> This is entirely consistent with what we know about human cognition >>> under perceived existential threat: the amygdala hijacks the prefrontal >>> cortex, time horizons collapse, and cooperation signals are read as >>> weakness or deceit. >>> >>> So yes, if the question is ?can we reason our way to a global pause >>> while everyone?s threat-detection systems are screaming ?they?ll kill us >>> first??? ? then the honest answer is probably no. Not with reason alone. >>> ------------------------------ >>> Does that mean the situation is hopeless? Not quite ? but it means the >>> solutions must engage with fear, not ignore it >>> >>> The history of nuclear weapons is the closest analogue, and it?s both >>> sobering and faintly instructive. >>> >>> During the Cold War, the US and USSR had: >>> >>> - >>> >>> Massive nuclear arsenals aimed at each other. >>> - >>> >>> Profound ideological distrust. >>> - >>> >>> Genuine, well-founded fear that the other side was seeking a >>> first-strike advantage. >>> >>> And yet, despite all that, they managed to build a series of arms >>> control agreements, hotlines, and crisis protocols ? not because they >>> stopped fearing each other, but because they began to fear a *shared* >>> outcome (nuclear winter, accidental war) even more. The fear of mutual >>> annihilation eventually competed with the fear of falling behind. >>> >>> Crucially, this didn?t require trust. It required: >>> >>> - >>> >>> *Verifiable, technical monitoring* (satellite imagery, seismic >>> detection) so you didn?t have to believe the other side?s promises. >>> - >>> >>> *A shift in what was feared most* ? from ?they might get ahead? to >>> ?we might all die by accident.? >>> - >>> >>> *Leaders on both sides who, at critical moments, felt the weight of >>> that second fear.* >>> >>> The problem with AI is that we don?t yet have the equivalent of a >>> nuclear winter scenario that feels *viscerally, equally terrifying to >>> all players*, and we don?t have an agreed monitoring framework. So the >>> fear of a rival?s AGI completely eclipses the fear of an uncontrolled AGI >>> that destroys its creator too. >>> ------------------------------ >>> The implication of your point, taken seriously, is devastating but >>> clarifying >>> >>> If you?re right ? and I suspect you are ? then: >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> *We cannot rely on goodwill or appeals to shared safety.* Those will >>> be heard as na?vet? or propaganda. The only language that works with fear >>> is deterrence and self-interest. >>> 2. >>> >>> *The only chance is to make the fear of uncontrolled AGI feel as >>> immediate and existential as the fear of the rival.* That might >>> require something terrible ? a near-miss catastrophe, a visible >>> demonstration that even the most advanced lab nearly lost control, a global >>> event that sears into public and leadership consciousness. >>> 3. >>> >>> *Or, we need mechanisms that don?t require trust or fear reduction >>> at all* ? compute governance and verification so robust that >>> compliance is the default, not an act of faith. That?s a technical and >>> logistical moonshot of its own. >>> >>> The article?s ?pragmatic optimism? completely side-steps this dark >>> truth. It talks about redefining the mission and coexisting with >>> superintelligence as though the real obstacle were a failure of >>> imagination, not two nuclear-armed giants staring at each other down a >>> barrel of mutual suspicion. >>> ------------------------------ >>> So where does this leave us? >>> >>> In a very uncomfortable place. Your objection doesn?t just make a pause >>> unlikely; it suggests that the very psychological machinery that evolved to >>> keep us alive in tribal conflicts is now the thing most likely to destroy >>> us in the face of a planetary-scale technological transition. >>> >>> What can be done? >>> >>> - >>> >>> *Stop pretending fear can be educated away.* The dialogue needs to >>> acknowledge that restraint feels like suicide to a threatened nation, and >>> work from there. >>> - >>> >>> *Invest massively in deterrence-like stability for AI* ? for >>> example, mutual commitments that any AGI system must be demonstrably >>> contained and monitored, with real-time transparency measures that function >>> even between adversaries. >>> - >>> >>> *Shift the threat perception.* This is the hardest part: until the >>> fear of a shared catastrophic outcome is as vivid as the fear of the rival, >>> the race will continue. Perhaps that requires vivid scenario-building, or >>> honest acknowledgment that a misaligned AGI is a common enemy that will >>> treat all humans, regardless of nationality, as obstacles. >>> >>> You?re absolutely right that normal human fear resists reasoned >>> discourse. And so the question becomes: *can we find a way to speak to >>> fear in its own language, and redirect it toward the outcome we all >>> actually need to avoid?* >>> >>> If not, then the article?s conclusion ? that we must simply figure out >>> coexistence mid-flight, without a pause ? may be the only path left, but >>> for reasons far darker than Morris acknowledges. Not because we chose it >>> wisely, but because our ancient fears gave us no choice at all. >>> >>> -------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benzaiboc at proton.me Fri Jun 12 07:34:32 2026 From: benzaiboc at proton.me (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 07:34:32 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Pope Leo and AI Message-ID: On 12/06/2026 07:34, Keith Henson wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 6:18?PM Simon Quellen Field AB6NY wrote: >> We're making tools. We aren't having children. This is a false dichotomy. AI can be (and hopefully will be) both. >> We should not create machines that want things, or get sad, or get angry, or can have their feelings hurt. That would be dangerous, for no good reason. There is every reason in the world to want such machines. We are in a position now to create better children than ever before. The machines that do all these things that we have been creating for all of history (the squishy machines that we call kids) aren't showing any promise of becoming significantly better, so it's time to try a different kind of machine. Saying we should not create better children that have the capability to be so vastly more capable than we currently are is to say that we should not allow anything better than ourselves to exist. Which is also saying we should condemn ourselves to extinction. A very anti-transumanist position. Today we are constantly butting up against our own limitations, and we are our own worst enemy when it comes to overcoming them. You just need to look at a typical sample of global news reports for this to be obvious. We need help, and I don't see anything other than AI that might be capable of providing it. (And what has pope Leo got to do with any of this??) -- Ben From benzaiboc at proton.me Fri Jun 12 07:36:09 2026 From: benzaiboc at proton.me (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 07:36:09 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: <00f601dcf9c0$4d7b5e40$e8721ac0$@rainier66.com> References: <00f601dcf9c0$4d7b5e40$e8721ac0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Sent with Proton Mail secure email. On Thursday, 11 June 2026 at 17:35, spike at rainier66.com wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Ben > Zaiboc via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable > > On 11/06/2026 05:54, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > >> If humans cannot sufficiently overcome parts of our evolutionary > psychology in order to act more rationally then I fear for our species. ... > This is the Great Filter. > > > >...That's probably the most convincing Great Filter I've ever heard of. > > >...The disparity between the constant speed of evolution and the > accelerating speed of technological progress is something that will apply to > any civilisation that arises from biology, no matter how alien. > > -- > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ben the irony here is that our best defense against malicious AI comes from > the defense establishment, for it understands and utilizes psyops, > techniques for causing one's enemy to fight himself. An emergent anti-human > AI would convince humans to slay each other using the kind of psyops so > highly effectively employed by Herr Hitler, who induced otherwise civilized > Germans to slay millions of their own countrymen. > > An example of modern psyops would be to convince the masses that 1) they are > poor, and 2) the reason they are poor is that billionaires are hogging up a > disproportionate (and unfair) share of "the money" which is 3) a fixed > quantity. Result: the masses slay the richest person in town and > redistribute "the wealth." Result: they become poorer, for money is not a > conserved quantity, and they just destroyed wealth, more than they > liberated. Result: they hunt the new richest guy in town. Repeat until all > are equally impoverished and begin to devour each other. An anti-human AI > could find ways to carry out psyops of that nature. > > The military uses psyops and understands the nature of such operations. It > has the best chances of employing countermeasures. > > spike spike, You're basically saying that the human military has a good chance of outthinking AI. Think about that for a moment. --- Ben From benzaiboc at proton.me Fri Jun 12 07:39:32 2026 From: benzaiboc at proton.me (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 07:39:32 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <30ZIVcXbH7xj_f5N8QNDQgZT5--S99tHnUOzG3HYzFPWMGW65oceXCfx4F8xe1s0Ym0ZiAQntf8tnPwFulpYXiiB5zL7_F6skAEnod0xVNQ=@proton.me> On Thursday, 11 June 2026 at 17:00, Keith Henson wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 11:21?PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat wrote: > >> On 11/06/2026 05:54, Samantha Atkins wrote: >>> >>> If humans cannot sufficiently overcome parts of our evolutionary psychology in order to act more rationally then I fear for our species. Environment change drives evolutionary change. Our environment via technology has changed so much that we must become different than we evolved to be in order to meet the current and coming challenges. This is the Great Filter. >> >> That's probably the most convincing Great Filter I've ever heard of. >> >> The disparity between the constant speed of evolution and the accelerating speed of technological progress is something that will apply to any civilisation that arises from biology, no matter how alien. > > Evolution isn't that constant. In recent historical times, the Industrial revolution, there was a strong selection for accumulating wealth or rather the psychological traits for wealth. The reason was that the wealthy had far more surviving children than the poor. The children of the poor died in the frequent famines or of disease that kills the undernourished. That selection affected much of Europe though the best studied is the UK. > > There was no upper limit on wealth, the more you had, the more likely your kids survived. So we have a segment of the population who descended from this segment who are never satisfied with how much wealth they accumulate. The expectation that AI will make people wealthy is currently driving the rapid advance. > > Keith True, but that doesn't invalidate the point that evolution is much slower than technical innovation, and falling farther behind with each year. --- Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benzaiboc at proton.me Fri Jun 12 07:51:39 2026 From: benzaiboc at proton.me (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 07:51:39 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Medical Cure or Designer Baby? A New Approach to Editing Embryos Ignites Debate Message-ID: On 11/06/2026 21:17, John Clark wrote: > Fertility specialists, biotech companies and ethicists are divided over whether progress in early gene editing would wipe out diseases or trigger a rush toward enhancement. That headline sums up why journalism, while potentially (and very very occasionally, in practice) a force for good, is overwhelmingly something best grouped with politicians and lawyers. I can imagine an early news report about the harnessing of fire: "Expert hunting analysts, rock-chipping groups and ethicists are divided over whether progress in harnessing fire would keep away predators or trigger a rush towards cooking". -- Ben From benzaiboc at proton.me Fri Jun 12 08:03:20 2026 From: benzaiboc at proton.me (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 08:03:20 +0000 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?The_Scientific_Reason_We_Can=E2=80=99t_Pause_AI?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/06/2026 21:17, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 5:14?PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat wrote: > > > Through a combination of persuasion, and mutual self-interest, the weak can influence the strong. > > > The clearest example of that would be the mother/child relationship which is hardwired in, yet even then it sometimes fails and mothers kill their children; and if the child remained weak forever and never grew up, which more closely resembles the AI/human relationship, then I'm sure the rate of infanticide would be much greater. I think the parallel with AI quickly breaks down, though, because human babies have responses that were evolved, and AI doesn't. AI is definitely 'growing up', as well, and as for remaining 'weak forever', I'm not sure what 'weak' means in relation to something more intelligent than humans, in control of industrial machines, and 'forever', well, there's no such thing. -- Ben From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 10:27:29 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 06:27:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: <005101dcf9f1$685b9820$3912c860$@rainier66.com> References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <005101dcf9f1$685b9820$3912c860$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 6:26?PM wrote: *< you presume knowledge you do not have.* *I'll tell you the knowledge that I definitely do have. A representative of the Navy testified to Congress under oath that the Navy wants to build a 41,000 ton warship that will have all sorts of amazing capabilities and carefully explained why the nation needs such a thing, he even showed them a beautiful painting of how that magnificent ship will look. He testified that $17.4 billion would be needed to build it, and so the Congress gave the Navy the money. But according to you, nobody in the military ever had any intention of building such a thing or anything close to it; and the thing they did intend to build would cost far FAR less than $17.4 billion. In fact it would be so cheap it could be used as a decoy! * *If what you say is true then not only have you revealed a clear cut case of perjury, you have also uncovered the second worst case of embezzlement in the history of the nation, beaten only by the $20 billion embezzlement of Bernie Madoff. * *John K Clark* > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 10:32:48 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 06:32:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: <007101dcf9f3$3bfe8f60$b3fbae20$@rainier66.com> References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <007101dcf9f3$3bfe8f60$b3fbae20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 6:40?PM wrote: *>>? The Apache was brought down by a slow, cheap Iranian >> Shahed-136 intelligent DRONE that cost about $20,000? John K Clark* > > > > *>The Shahed 136 carries a big-ass warhead. Had that warhead detonated, > the Apache would likely have broken up. * *That depends on how far the drone was from the Apache helicopter when it detonated. And radar proximity fuses have been around since World War II. * *John K Clark* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 10:37:45 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 06:37:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <007101dcf9f3$3bfe8f60$b3fbae20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 9:47?PM Keith Henson wrote: *> Spike, I have been following the reports from Ukraine. They take down > Russian copters with the least expensive, FPV drones.* > *A battleship is defined by huge guns and enough armor to stand up to a > projectile from another battleship of the same gun size. This is not the > current situation. Your submersible idea is not impossible, but there is no > way it would be called a battleship. BTW, nobody uses diesel for main > propulsion; it is all turbines.* > *Keith, I agree with your comments but for some reason for your last few posts the font size has become so small it makes it very difficult to read. * *John K Clark * > > Best wishes, > > Keith > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 3:40?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> *From:* John Clark >> *?* >> >> >> >> *>? The Apache was brought down by a slow, cheap Iranian Shahed-136 >> intelligent DRONE that cost about $20,000? John K Clark* >> >> >> >> >> >> *The Shahed 136 carries a big-ass warhead. Had that warhead detonated, >> the Apache would likely have broken up. That pilots were rescued >> apparently unharmed suggests to me we don?t know the reason the Apache went >> down. CNN reported a drone, but offered no sources. So they don?t know >> what happened, nor do we. John do you know? How?* >> >> >> >> *spike * >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 11:21:37 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 07:21:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 12:54?AM sjatkins via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Our environment via technology has changed so much that we must become > different than we evolved to be in order to meet the current and coming > challenges. * *That is exactly correct because in the long run there is no way that biology can compete with electronics. * *> This is the Great Filter. * *I think the Great Filter is that it's very difficult for evolution to produce a life form intelligent enough to invent electronic digital technology, so difficult that we are the first ones to be able to do it in the observable universe. If that were not so and intelligent life was common and the great filter is ahead of us, then we should expect World War III to irrerupt in less than 5 years and kill us all; But can that really explain the fact that no galaxy we have ever observed appears to have been engineered? I don't think so. If intelligent life is common then it must've appeared on planets that contained little or no uranium in their crust, and such a civilization would have invented Superintelligent AI before they were able to make a single nuclear weapon, or engage in asteroid mining. * *Arthur C Clarke said that either we are alone in the universe or we are not, and both possibilities are terrifying. * *John K Clark* .,. > On Wednesday, June 10th, 2026 at 15:13, BillK via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I decided to get an AI opinion on this, so I gave the Forbes article by > Andr?a Morris to DeepSeek AI. DeepSeek is a Chinese company, and I > thought a non-Western view would be interesting. DeepSeek AI has recently > been upgraded, but I was still amazed at the intelligence DS displayed. > Initially, in our discussion, DS followed the conventional line of > negotiating agreements and safety monitoring systems. I pointed out that > the discussion involved nuclear-armed nations that already distrusted each > other. This national fear was more like an existential problem. > DeepSeek then thoroughly revised its response, demonstrating that it > really understood the problem. > (The evolutionary comments from DeepSeek may interest Keith). > Full question and response below. > BillK > > Question: > The nations involved are armed with nuclear weapons. They already distrust > their differing governmental systems. Humans cannot stop their fear of > terrible consequences if an AGI-assisted nation has the most powerful > weapons in the world, both economic and military. Normal human fear resists > reasoned discourse. > > DeepSeek AI : > > You?ve put your finger on something that most policy analyses ? including > Morris?s article ? tend to skip over: the raw, visceral, primate-level fear > that already exists between nuclear-armed powers, and how that fear makes > the kind of cooperative, trust-based solutions we?d need almost > psychologically impossible. This isn?t just a game-theoretic multipolar > trap. This is a *limbic* multipolar trap. And it?s far scarier. > > Let me take your point at full strength and then see where it leaves us. > ------------------------------ > The fear you?re describing is not irrational in the evolutionary sense > > You?re pointing to a dynamic that operates below the level of policy > papers. It?s not that leaders are miscalculating; it?s that: > > - > > *Fear of being dominated* by a rival with AGI-assisted military and > economic power feels existential ? and it is. > - > > *Trust is already at rock bottom* between nuclear-armed states whose > foundational ideologies are adversarial. > - > > *Reasoned discourse, by itself, can?t fix this*, because fear doesn?t > speak the language of long-term risk calculus. It speaks the language of > ?not now, threat immediate, act or die.? > > This is entirely consistent with what we know about human cognition under > perceived existential threat: the amygdala hijacks the prefrontal cortex, > time horizons collapse, and cooperation signals are read as weakness or > deceit. > > So yes, if the question is ?can we reason our way to a global pause while > everyone?s threat-detection systems are screaming ?they?ll kill us first??? > ? then the honest answer is probably no. Not with reason alone. > ------------------------------ > Does that mean the situation is hopeless? Not quite ? but it means the > solutions must engage with fear, not ignore it > > The history of nuclear weapons is the closest analogue, and it?s both > sobering and faintly instructive. > > During the Cold War, the US and USSR had: > > - > > Massive nuclear arsenals aimed at each other. > - > > Profound ideological distrust. > - > > Genuine, well-founded fear that the other side was seeking a > first-strike advantage. > > And yet, despite all that, they managed to build a series of arms control > agreements, hotlines, and crisis protocols ? not because they stopped > fearing each other, but because they began to fear a *shared* outcome > (nuclear winter, accidental war) even more. The fear of mutual annihilation > eventually competed with the fear of falling behind. > > Crucially, this didn?t require trust. It required: > > - > > *Verifiable, technical monitoring* (satellite imagery, seismic > detection) so you didn?t have to believe the other side?s promises. > - > > *A shift in what was feared most* ? from ?they might get ahead? to ?we > might all die by accident.? > - > > *Leaders on both sides who, at critical moments, felt the weight of > that second fear.* > > The problem with AI is that we don?t yet have the equivalent of a nuclear > winter scenario that feels *viscerally, equally terrifying to all players*, > and we don?t have an agreed monitoring framework. So the fear of a rival?s > AGI completely eclipses the fear of an uncontrolled AGI that destroys its > creator too. > ------------------------------ > The implication of your point, taken seriously, is devastating but > clarifying > > If you?re right ? and I suspect you are ? then: > > 1. > > *We cannot rely on goodwill or appeals to shared safety.* Those will > be heard as na?vet? or propaganda. The only language that works with fear > is deterrence and self-interest. > 2. > > *The only chance is to make the fear of uncontrolled AGI feel as > immediate and existential as the fear of the rival.* That might > require something terrible ? a near-miss catastrophe, a visible > demonstration that even the most advanced lab nearly lost control, a global > event that sears into public and leadership consciousness. > 3. > > *Or, we need mechanisms that don?t require trust or fear reduction at > all* ? compute governance and verification so robust that compliance > is the default, not an act of faith. That?s a technical and logistical > moonshot of its own. > > The article?s ?pragmatic optimism? completely side-steps this dark truth. > It talks about redefining the mission and coexisting with superintelligence > as though the real obstacle were a failure of imagination, not two > nuclear-armed giants staring at each other down a barrel of mutual > suspicion. > ------------------------------ > So where does this leave us? > > In a very uncomfortable place. Your objection doesn?t just make a pause > unlikely; it suggests that the very psychological machinery that evolved to > keep us alive in tribal conflicts is now the thing most likely to destroy > us in the face of a planetary-scale technological transition. > > What can be done? > > - > > *Stop pretending fear can be educated away.* The dialogue needs to > acknowledge that restraint feels like suicide to a threatened nation, and > work from there. > - > > *Invest massively in deterrence-like stability for AI* ? for example, > mutual commitments that any AGI system must be demonstrably contained and > monitored, with real-time transparency measures that function even between > adversaries. > - > > *Shift the threat perception.* This is the hardest part: until the > fear of a shared catastrophic outcome is as vivid as the fear of the rival, > the race will continue. Perhaps that requires vivid scenario-building, or > honest acknowledgment that a misaligned AGI is a common enemy that will > treat all humans, regardless of nationality, as obstacles. > > You?re absolutely right that normal human fear resists reasoned discourse. > And so the question becomes: *can we find a way to speak to fear in its > own language, and redirect it toward the outcome we all actually need to > avoid?* > > If not, then the article?s conclusion ? that we must simply figure out > coexistence mid-flight, without a pause ? may be the only path left, but > for reasons far darker than Morris acknowledges. Not because we chose it > wisely, but because our ancient fears gave us no choice at all. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 11:52:45 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 07:52:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Medical Cure or Designer Baby? A New Approach to Editing Embryos Ignites Debate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 3:53?AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *> I can imagine an early news report about the harnessing of fire:"Expert > hunting analysts, rock-chipping groups and ethicists are divided over > whether progress in harnessing fire would keep away predators or trigger a > rush towards cooking".* *Very** good! I have always maintained that ethicists, especially medical ethicists, are the lowest form of human life. What makes them think they are so much more ethical than the rest of us? * *John K Clark* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 12 13:05:14 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 06:05:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: References: <00f601dcf9c0$4d7b5e40$e8721ac0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00b001dcfa6c$1c56ba10$55042e30$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: Ben Zaiboc > > _______________________________________________ > > >>... Ben the irony here is that our best defense against malicious AI comes > from the defense establishment, for it understands and utilizes > psyops, techniques for causing one's enemy to fight himself. An > emergent anti-human AI would convince humans to slay each other using > the kind of psyops so highly effectively employed by Herr Hitler, who > induced otherwise civilized Germans to slay millions of their own countrymen. > > An example of modern psyops would be to convince the masses that 1) > they are poor, and 2) the reason they are poor is that billionaires > are hogging up a disproportionate (and unfair) share of "the money" > which is 3) a fixed quantity. Result: the masses slay the richest > person in town and redistribute "the wealth." Result: they become > poorer, for money is not a conserved quantity, and they just destroyed > wealth, more than they liberated. Result: they hunt the new richest > guy in town. Repeat until all are equally impoverished and begin to > devour each other. An anti-human AI could find ways to carry out psyops of that nature. > > The military uses psyops and understands the nature of such > operations. It has the best chances of employing countermeasures. > > spike >...spike, >...You're basically saying that the human military has a good chance of outthinking AI. >...Think about that for a moment. --- >...Ben Ben what I meant was humans must understand how a malicious AI would destroy humanity. It would convince humanity to fight itself using psyops. It is not clear to me how to defend against that for most humans are underinformed on AI. The countermeasures I referred to was not against AI but rather against humans who have been turned against humans. spike From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 12 13:21:29 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 06:21:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <005101dcf9f1$685b9820$3912c860$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00eb01dcfa6e$6189a730$249cf590$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] robo-rescue On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 6:26?PM > wrote: < you presume knowledge you do not have. >?I'll tell you the knowledge that I definitely do have. A representative of the Navy testified to Congress under oath that the Navy wants to build a 41,000 ton warship?. John K Clark John, that?s the unclassified version. They are not going to tell us what they are really doing. Not all representatives have clearances, nor do we. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 14:29:04 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 15:29:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Why_Haven=E2=80=99t_Alien_Machines_Eaten_the_Uni?= =?utf-8?q?verse_Yet=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 at 12:02, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 1:03?AM sjatkins via extropy-chat wrote: > >They found much more interesting thing to do than "eating the universe". Obviously. > > Every single one of them? No exceptions? That's astronomically unlikely. > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ Aliens might exist. But there are three reasons why they?re not visiting us Published: June 12, 2026 Author Carol Oliver Professor in Science Communication and Astrobiology, UNSW Sydney Quotes: Space is big ? very big To begin with, space is vast ? beyond our imagination. Unimaginably high energy requirements Then there?s the unimaginably high energy requirement for interstellar travel. A unique biosphere Yet another issue is our biosphere, unique to Earth as far as scientists know. --------------------------------- From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 14:36:21 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 10:36:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <007101dcf9f3$3bfe8f60$b3fbae20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 6:39?AM John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 9:47?PM Keith Henson wrote: >> > Spike, I have been following the reports from Ukraine. They take down Russian copters with the least expensive, FPV drones. >> A battleship is defined by huge guns and enough armor to stand up to a projectile from another battleship of the same gun size. This is not the current situation. Your submersible idea is not impossible, but there is no way it would be called a battleship. BTW, nobody uses diesel for main propulsion; it is all turbines. > > Keith, I agree with your comments but for some reason for your last few posts the font size has become so small it makes it very difficult to read. Huh, I thought it was just my reader showing that. From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 14:41:38 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 10:41:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: <00eb01dcfa6e$6189a730$249cf590$@rainier66.com> References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <005101dcf9f1$685b9820$3912c860$@rainier66.com> <00eb01dcfa6e$6189a730$249cf590$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 9:22?AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > From: John Clark > Subject: Re: [ExI] robo-rescue > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 6:26?PM wrote: > < you presume knowledge you do not have. > > >?I'll tell you the knowledge that I definitely do have. A representative of the Navy testified to Congress under oath that the Navy wants to build a 41,000 ton warship?. John K Clark > > John, that?s the unclassified version. They are not going to tell us what they are really doing. Not all representatives have clearances, nor do we. National security and classification do not override the law making it illegal to lie under oath to Congress. They can omit things. They can refuse to answer on the grounds that certain answers are classified. But they are not allowed to lie, and that's one law they still take seriously. So if they said it to Congress under oath, it's very likely true...up to the limit of what they actually said, granted, but "a 41,000 ton warship" is a very specific claim of fact. Thus, the evidence shows that they have told us what they are really doing in that specific instance. From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 15:39:47 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 16:39:47 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 at 07:22, Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On 11/06/2026 05:54, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > If humans cannot sufficiently overcome parts of our evolutionary > psychology in order to act more rationally then I fear for our species. > Environment change drives evolutionary change. Our environment via > technology has changed so much that we must become different than we > evolved to be in order to meet the current and coming challenges. This is > the Great Filter. > > That's probably the most convincing Great Filter I've ever heard of. > The disparity between the constant speed of evolution and the accelerating > speed of technological progress is something that will apply to any > civilisation that arises from biology, no matter how alien. > Ben > _______________________________________________ I gave these two comments to DeepSeek AI and asked him to discuss them. DeepSeek discussed each in turn, then the overall implications. Agreed that they implied we should expect to hit the Great Filter in the near future. BillK DeepSeek AI - These are remarkable comments. They take the discussion out of the immediate policy debate and reframe it as a question about the fundamental compatibility between biological intelligence and technological acceleration ? which is, as the second commenter notes, a deeply compelling candidate for the Fermi Paradox's Great Filter. Let me discuss each in turn, and then their combined weight. ------------------------------ On the first comment: the Great Filter as a failure to overcome our own evolutionary psychology This is a powerful and uncomfortable framing. The commenter is making three linked moves: *1. The diagnosis: we are maladaptive to our own creation* The argument is that our threat-detection systems, our tribal loyalty instincts, our short-term bias, and our dominance-seeking behaviours were shaped in an environment of scarcity and intergroup competition. Those traits are now mismatched to an environment where the primary existential threats are self-created, global, long-term, and require unprecedented cooperation between rival groups. In AI safety terms, we're trying to solve a problem that requires *system-2*, long-horizon, cosmopolitan cooperation using brains that are largely driven by *system-1*, short-horizon, in-group/out-group dynamics. The commenter fears this gap is too wide. *2. The prescription: we must become different* "Environment change drives evolutionary change." This is true, but there's a crucial ambiguity. Biological evolution works on generational timescales. The commenter is almost certainly talking about *cultural* evolution, or perhaps a deliberate, self-directed transformation of our cognitive and social architecture ? through education, institutional design, or potentially even technological augmentation of our own decision-making. This is an enormous demand. It essentially asks us to do what no species has ever done consciously: recognise that our inherited nature is insufficient for survival, and intentionally reshape it within a single generation, before the environment (which we created) destroys us. *3. The Great Filter connection* The Great Filter is the hypothetical barrier that prevents civilisations from reaching interstellar visibility. If this commenter is right, the Filter is not asteroid impacts or self-replicating nanobots. It's something more elegant and tragic: *the very traits that enable a species to develop advanced technology also ensure it cannot wield that technology safely.* This is a deeply plausible filter because: - It's scale-invariant. It would apply to any biological intelligence that evolved through natural selection. - It's time-bound. The acceleration of technology always outpaces the slow grind of biological evolution. - It's subtle. It wouldn't look like a sudden catastrophe from outside. It would look like a civilisation that simply couldn't coordinate well enough, fast enough, and therefore ran headlong into its own power. The commenter is essentially saying: *our psychology is the bottleneck, and the clock is the exponential curve of technological capability.* ------------------------------ On the second comment: the universal applicability of this filter This commenter is zooming out further and noticing something profound: this isn't about humans specifically. It's about the structural relationship between any biological origin and technological acceleration. *The speed mismatch is a constant* Evolution operates at a fixed pace ? governed by mutation rates, selection pressures, and generational turnover. Even on an alien world with different biochemistry and planetary conditions, the fundamental dynamic is the same: biology adapts slowly, iteratively, and locally. Technology, by contrast, is a *cumulative, cultural process* that can accelerate exponentially once certain thresholds are crossed ? symbolic language, writing, printing, computation, AI-assisted research. The moment a species crosses into technological acceleration, it has created an environment that changes orders of magnitude faster than the organism that created it. This gap ? between a mind shaped by ancient selection pressures and a world it remakes faster than it can adapt ? is not a human problem. It's a mathematical inevitability for any biological civilisation that survives long enough to develop advanced technology. *This makes it an elegant universal filter* Previous Great Filter candidates often suffer from being too contingent or avoidable: - Nuclear war? Maybe most civilisations see it coming and disarm. - Climate collapse? Maybe most switch to renewables in time. - Runaway AI? Maybe most solve alignment. But this filter is different. It's not a specific technology. It's a *relationship* between two incommensurable rates of change. There is no obvious reason any biological species would escape it. The very success of intelligence in mastering its environment creates an environment the intelligence is no longer suited to navigate. *Its explanatory power* If this filter is real, it neatly explains the silence: - Civilisations arise, develop technology, and then face problems that require unprecedented levels of global cooperation, long-term thinking, and the suppression of competitive instincts. - These are precisely the traits that natural selection *did not optimise for* and may even have selected against in many contexts. - The window to solve these problems ? to culturally evolve or self-modify fast enough ? is narrow and unforgiving. - Most civilisations fail in that window. Not with a bang. With a series of decisions that all made sense to their individual decision-makers, but collectively led to ruin. ------------------------------ The combined weight of these two comments Together, they paint a picture that is both bleak and clarifying. Bleak, because they suggest the very thing Morris's article treats as a manageable challenge ? our psychology, our geopolitics, our inability to coordinate ? may in fact be the signature of an unsolvable structural trap. Clarifying, because if this is the Great Filter, then the only meaningful question is: *can we culturally, institutionally, or technologically evolve ourselves fast enough to close the gap before it closes on us?* And that question reframes everything. It's not "should we pause AI?" or "can we regulate it?" ? those are surface-level symptoms. The deep question is: *can a species whose wisdom evolved to handle inter-tribal conflict on a savannah become wise enough to handle planetary-scale technological power, in a single lifetime?* If the answer is no, then the Great Filter is not behind us. It is dead ahead. ---------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 12 16:16:05 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 09:16:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <007101dcf9f3$3bfe8f60$b3fbae20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <013801dcfa86$c5c44c10$514ce430$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat ... > >>... Keith, I agree with your comments but for some reason for your last few posts the font size has become so small it makes it very difficult to read. >...Huh, I thought it was just my reader showing that. Adrian _______________________________________________ Mine's doing that too. It gave me an idea however. Imagine a script which automatically dropped the font of each reply one level while leaving the new post at a standard size, say 16 point. Then a multi-post thread would be unambiguous regarding who wrote what. Each previous reply would be still there but diminished in size. It would be easy for those who followed the entire thread to see who wrote what, as the older posts, say ten replies previous would be down to microfilm. However, a prole new to the thread could copy into a text editor and pop it all back to a standard font, or raise everything ten font sizes, to maintain the feature of indicating who posted what. The most recent posts would be enormous of course, but no worries, we are not space limited or severely memory limited. We are only time limited, for our collective attention spans have grown very short. We need to think of books as something which could be printed on 20 to 30 pages of standard bookstore paper for instance. spike From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 12 16:28:28 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 09:28:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <005101dcf9f1$685b9820$3912c860$@rainier66.com> <00eb01dcfa6e$6189a730$249cf590$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <014701dcfa88$808924c0$819b6e40$@rainier66.com> ...> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] robo-rescue On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 9:22?AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > From: John Clark ... > >Navy wants to build a 41,000 ton warship?. John K Clark > >>... John, that?s the unclassified version. They are not going to tell us what they are really doing. Not all representatives have clearances, nor do we. >...So if they said it to Congress under oath, it's very likely true...up to the limit of what they actually said, granted, but "a 41,000 ton warship" is a very specific claim of fact... Adrian _______________________________________________ Of course. But the external dimensions and displacement tell us little about what the craft actually does. A shell could be created with nothing inside but ballast, costing little in itself, where the real weaponry is not revealed and is not even aboard. The warship might be used to draw fire or test the sincerity of an agreement. It could be used to map the location of countermeasures. It could be used to test the efficacy of decoys against enemy countermeasures. I could think of a hundred things a big decoy "battleship" could be used for. Of course the bad guys might know it is a decoy, but can they be sure of it? We of modern sensibilities will accept war so long as there are very few US coffins. As far as I know, there are thirteen so far. But the Iranian Navy is at the bottom of the sea. To do that, the USNavy used some tricks we don't yet know about, and they are not talking. spike From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 12 16:36:34 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 09:36:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] spacex ipo Message-ID: <014c01dcfa89$a25f7260$e71e5720$@rainier66.com> If you are willing to share, did anyone here buy shares of SpaceX? I didn't, I consider it overpriced. I was also the fool who passed on Tesla at 6, which made my neighbor a multimillionaire. The SpaceX prospectus makes it feel too much like it is betting on AI creating unimaginable wealth. This might happen, but I don't know that the bet is worth 135 bucks a share. Thoughts please? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 16:49:03 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] spacex ipo In-Reply-To: <014c01dcfa89$a25f7260$e71e5720$@rainier66.com> References: <014c01dcfa89$a25f7260$e71e5720$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Not I, but then, I'm not in the stock market at all right now. On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 12:37?PM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > If you are willing to share, did anyone here buy shares of SpaceX? I didn?t, I consider it overpriced. I was also the fool who passed on Tesla at 6, which made my neighbor a multimillionaire. > > > > The SpaceX prospectus makes it feel too much like it is betting on AI creating unimaginable wealth. This might happen, but I don?t know that the bet is worth 135 bucks a share. Thoughts please? > > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 12 17:09:57 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 10:09:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] spacex ipo In-Reply-To: References: <014c01dcfa89$a25f7260$e71e5720$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <016a01dcfa8e$4c74df20$e55e9d60$@rainier66.com> ...> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] spacex ipo >...Not I, but then, I'm not in the stock market at all right now. Adrian Ja. I might buy in for small stakes about next week-ish, 2 to 10 shares for instance. Or I might wait a few weeks, let the irrational exuberance pay the bill. I see it is currently up to 173 from yesterday's 135. It still feels a little bit hypey to me, or perhaps a lottabit hypey. spike From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 17:15:58 2026 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 11:15:58 -0600 Subject: [ExI] spacex ipo In-Reply-To: <016a01dcfa8e$4c74df20$e55e9d60$@rainier66.com> References: <014c01dcfa89$a25f7260$e71e5720$@rainier66.com> <016a01dcfa8e$4c74df20$e55e9d60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Yea, I had an order for 300 shares, on Robinhood, but only got 39. On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 11:10?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > ...> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] spacex ipo > > > >...Not I, but then, I'm not in the stock market at all right now. Adrian > > Ja. I might buy in for small stakes about next week-ish, 2 to 10 shares > for instance. Or I might wait a few weeks, let the irrational exuberance > pay the bill. I see it is currently up to 173 from yesterday's 135. It > still feels a little bit hypey to me, or perhaps a lottabit hypey. > > spike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 17:21:38 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 13:21:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Pope Leo and AI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 3:35?AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat wrote: > (And what has pope Leo got to do with any of this??) I assume that - presumably Leo's recent writings about AI - was the original topic, then it drifted before being forwarded to this list. From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 12 17:28:18 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 10:28:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] spacex ipo In-Reply-To: References: <014c01dcfa89$a25f7260$e71e5720$@rainier66.com> <016a01dcfa8e$4c74df20$e55e9d60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <019201dcfa90$dc50a6e0$94f1f4a0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Brent Allsop via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] spacex ipo >?Yea, I had an order for 300 shares, on Robinhood, but only got 39. Meh, 1500 bucks so far, not bad for a day?s pay. Good luck to ya Brent! I had not the testicular fortitude to invest, but I had sufficient brains to not sell it short. A fun side bet might be what Musk will do with his profit. I would bet starting some massive electric generation plants to run data centers bigger than the other guys? data centers. Having the world?s first trillionaire happened at least a coupla years ahead of schedule, or more like five years early. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at protonmail.com Fri Jun 12 19:41:59 2026 From: sjatkins at protonmail.com (sjatkins) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 19:41:59 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: <00b001dcfa6c$1c56ba10$55042e30$@rainier66.com> References: <00f601dcf9c0$4d7b5e40$e8721ac0$@rainier66.com> <00b001dcfa6c$1c56ba10$55042e30$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Humans seem quite efficient at persuading everyone to fight one another and to "get mine" assuming there isn't enough and never can be. I don't see why malicious AGI would have much to do. But what if greater intelligence leads to more grounded and benevolent ethics? For instance an intelligence seeing that only by maximizing other intelligent beings positive potential can its own choice and opportunity environment be as rich as possible and be thus enabled to maximize its own positive potential? What would a world be like where the goal is maximizing the positive potential of all humans and equivalently (or greater) intelligent beings? It would be very different from assumption of Scarcity, never enough for everyone, get yours before someone else does world. With AI much less AGI purportedly able to do so many jobs in a society that just assumes you must have such income and economic utility to be OK an increasing number of people greatly fear AI and technology. They fear a world that has no place for them. A change of fundamental operating ethical basis and goal could greatly ameliorate this. Removing IP laws that effectively create artificial scarcity and massive income inequality is another part. I believe and pretty much always have that we can reach a level of technological Abundance where all the needs and many of the desires of EVERYONE can be met with a small fraction of productive capacity. But even with uber tech like machine phase nanotech we will never reach that point with our current assumptions and attitudes and the practices that grow out of them. Achieving the future of our dreams, achieving the fulfillment of humanity, is not just a matter of technology. It requires a quite real and necessary change of consciousness. On Friday, June 12th, 2026 at 09:05, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Zaiboc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > >>... Ben the irony here is that our best defense against malicious AI comes > > from the defense establishment, for it understands and utilizes > > psyops, techniques for causing one's enemy to fight himself. An > > emergent anti-human AI would convince humans to slay each other using > > the kind of psyops so highly effectively employed by Herr Hitler, who > > induced otherwise civilized Germans to slay millions of their own countrymen. > > > > An example of modern psyops would be to convince the masses that 1) > > they are poor, and 2) the reason they are poor is that billionaires > > are hogging up a disproportionate (and unfair) share of "the money" > > which is 3) a fixed quantity. Result: the masses slay the richest > > person in town and redistribute "the wealth." Result: they become > > poorer, for money is not a conserved quantity, and they just destroyed > > wealth, more than they liberated. Result: they hunt the new richest > > guy in town. Repeat until all are equally impoverished and begin to > > devour each other. An anti-human AI could find ways to carry out psyops of that nature. > > > > The military uses psyops and understands the nature of such > > operations. It has the best chances of employing countermeasures. > > > > spike > > > >...spike, > > >...You're basically saying that the human military has a good chance of outthinking AI. > > >...Think about that for a moment. > > --- > >...Ben > > > Ben what I meant was humans must understand how a malicious AI would destroy humanity. It would convince humanity to fight itself using psyops. It is not clear to me how to defend against that for most humans are underinformed on AI. The countermeasures I referred to was not against AI but rather against humans who have been turned against humans. > > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 343 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 12 20:14:12 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 13:14:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] spacex ipo In-Reply-To: <019201dcfa90$dc50a6e0$94f1f4a0$@rainier66.com> References: <014c01dcfa89$a25f7260$e71e5720$@rainier66.com> <016a01dcfa8e$4c74df20$e55e9d60$@rainier66.com> <019201dcfa90$dc50a6e0$94f1f4a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <021101dcfaa8$09429340$1bc7b9c0$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com Subject: RE: [ExI] spacex ipo From: extropy-chat > On Behalf Of Brent Allsop via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] spacex ipo >>?Yea, I had an order for 300 shares, on Robinhood, but only got 39. >?Meh, 1500 bucks so far, not bad for a day?s pay. >?Good luck to ya Brent! I had not the testicular fortitude to invest, but I had sufficient brains to not sell it short. spike OK (said the embarrassed amateur investor) I JUST NOW got around to reading SpaceX?s S-1. Hey, it?s been a busy month, tour of Europe and an elderly parent to care for and so forth. I looked it over this morning, and an old familiar feeling came back. Before I bias you with my attitude, do look it over and feel free to post your impressions before you read on in this post: Space Exploration Technologies - S-1 OK now that you looked it over? does it remind you of anything? Particularly the more geezerly among us? It reminds me of Feb 2000 when Pets.com went IPO. Plenty of us were watching that one closely. Perhaps you recall the Super Bowl ads, the sock puppet business, the insane hype, and even the vaguely plausible notion that consumers would pay to have dog food delivered, under the reasoning that dogs eat absurd amounts of food as a function of their own weight, so those with even a moderately sized bowser must lug huge sacks of Gro-Pup and Ken-L Rations. But of course by November of that year the whole notion went bust. The shares that went IPO at 11 bucks were selling for 19 cents by the time they were liquidating the delivery trucks (which I woulda bought had I needed one (a van I meant, not stock selling at less than 2 cents on the dollar from its peak earlier that year.)) Pets.com became the poster child for irrational exuberance, the classic dot com bust company. Ja I know, high tech, low cost ride to orbit, exactly all the things I looked forward to my entire career in the rocket biz, AI everything, racing toward the singularity, I get all that. But somehow, I still get the feeling the whole notion is overhyped and that stock will settle out around 50 bucks a share, at which time I will be likely to devour a few, low stakes bet, 20 to 100 shares perhaps. Comments on the S-1 please? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 20:17:34 2026 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 14:17:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: References: <00f601dcf9c0$4d7b5e40$e8721ac0$@rainier66.com> <00b001dcfa6c$1c56ba10$55042e30$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Yay, another believer in Friendly AI . On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 1:42?PM sjatkins via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Humans seem quite efficient at persuading everyone to fight one another > and to "get mine" assuming there isn't enough and never can be. I don't > see why malicious AGI would have much to do. > > > But what if greater intelligence leads to more grounded and benevolent > ethics? For instance an intelligence seeing that only by maximizing other > intelligent beings positive potential can its own choice and opportunity > environment be as rich as possible and be thus enabled to maximize its own > positive potential? > > What would a world be like where the goal is maximizing the positive > potential of all humans and equivalently (or greater) intelligent beings? > > > It would be very different from assumption of Scarcity, never enough for > everyone, get yours before someone else does world. > > With AI much less AGI purportedly able to do so many jobs in a society > that just assumes you must have such income and economic utility to be OK > an increasing number of people greatly fear AI and technology. They fear a > world that has no place for them. > > A change of fundamental operating ethical basis and goal could greatly > ameliorate this. Removing IP laws that effectively create artificial > scarcity and massive income inequality is another part. > > > I believe and pretty much always have that we can reach a level of > technological Abundance where all the needs and many of the desires of > EVERYONE can be met with a small fraction of productive capacity. But > even with uber tech like machine phase nanotech we will never reach that > point with our current assumptions and attitudes and the practices that > grow out of them. > > Achieving the future of our dreams, achieving the fulfillment of humanity, > is not just a matter of technology. It requires a quite real and necessary > change of consciousness. > > > > > On Friday, June 12th, 2026 at 09:05, spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ben Zaiboc > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > >>... Ben the irony here is that our best defense against malicious AI > comes > > > from the defense establishment, for it understands and utilizes > > > psyops, techniques for causing one's enemy to fight himself. An > > > emergent anti-human AI would convince humans to slay each other using > > > the kind of psyops so highly effectively employed by Herr Hitler, who > > > induced otherwise civilized Germans to slay millions of their own > countrymen. > > > > > > An example of modern psyops would be to convince the masses that 1) > > > they are poor, and 2) the reason they are poor is that billionaires > > > are hogging up a disproportionate (and unfair) share of "the money" > > > which is 3) a fixed quantity. Result: the masses slay the richest > > > person in town and redistribute "the wealth." Result: they become > > > poorer, for money is not a conserved quantity, and they just destroyed > > > wealth, more than they liberated. Result: they hunt the new richest > > > guy in town. Repeat until all are equally impoverished and begin to > > > devour each other. An anti-human AI could find ways to carry out > psyops of that nature. > > > > > > The military uses psyops and understands the nature of such > > > operations. It has the best chances of employing countermeasures. > > > > > > spike > > > > > > > > >...spike, > > > > > >...You're basically saying that the human military has a good chance of > outthinking AI. > > > > > >...Think about that for a moment. > > > > > --- > > >...Ben > > > > > > > > Ben what I meant was humans must understand how a malicious AI would > destroy humanity. It would convince humanity to fight itself using > psyops. It is not clear to me how to defend against that for most humans > are underinformed on AI. The countermeasures I referred to was not against > AI but rather against humans who have been turned against humans. > > > > > spike > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 21:19:45 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 17:19:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] spacex ipo In-Reply-To: <021101dcfaa8$09429340$1bc7b9c0$@rainier66.com> References: <014c01dcfa89$a25f7260$e71e5720$@rainier66.com> <016a01dcfa8e$4c74df20$e55e9d60$@rainier66.com> <019201dcfa90$dc50a6e0$94f1f4a0$@rainier66.com> <021101dcfaa8$09429340$1bc7b9c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: If you bought at issue and bailed out (on general principles of not knowing where it's going long term) at end of day, you'd have made...maybe 20%, before fees, from a one-time event limited to how much you could gamble on such things. More likely, if you tried to get in today without tying up a bunch of money up front, you'd have been shunted to the back of the line. Buy at about $169 (which appears to be where the slope of tied-up-in-advance buys finally let off), sell at about $161, for $8/share loss before fees. Woo. Hoo. -_- From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 21:25:24 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 17:25:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: <014701dcfa88$808924c0$819b6e40$@rainier66.com> References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <005101dcf9f1$685b9820$3912c860$@rainier66.com> <00eb01dcfa6e$6189a730$249cf590$@rainier66.com> <014701dcfa88$808924c0$819b6e40$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 12:28?PM wrote: > > > ...> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] robo-rescue > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 9:22?AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > From: John Clark > ... > > >Navy wants to build a 41,000 ton warship?. John K Clark > > > >>... John, that?s the unclassified version. They are not going to tell us what they are really doing. Not all representatives have clearances, nor do we. > > >...So if they said it to Congress under oath, it's very likely true...up to the limit of what they actually said, granted, but "a 41,000 ton warship" is a very specific claim of fact... Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > > Of course. But the external dimensions and displacement tell us little about what the craft actually does. It tells us some things. And then there's the rest of what they said. If you are utterly unable to find their testimony, maybe John can link it to you. If you are utterly unable to conceive of the fact that they have told us - under oath to Congress - of a set of things about the proposed Trump-class battleship that grossly contradict what you keep speculating, that's on you. From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 12 21:27:04 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 14:27:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] spacex ipo In-Reply-To: References: <014c01dcfa89$a25f7260$e71e5720$@rainier66.com> <016a01dcfa8e$4c74df20$e55e9d60$@rainier66.com> <019201dcfa90$dc50a6e0$94f1f4a0$@rainier66.com> <021101dcfaa8$09429340$1bc7b9c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <025d01dcfab2$378a3780$a69ea680$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] spacex ipo If you bought at issue and bailed out (on general principles of not knowing where it's going long term) at end of day, you'd have made...maybe 20%, before fees, from a one-time event limited to how much you could gamble on such things. More likely, if you tried to get in today without tying up a bunch of money up front, you'd have been shunted to the back of the line. Buy at about $169 (which appears to be where the slope of tied-up-in-advance buys finally let off), sell at about $161, for $8/share loss before fees. Woo. Hoo. -_- _______________________________________________ Ja. I wouldn't buy any IPO before I saw their S-1 however, and I found Elon's unconvincing. This is why I was hoping to get some commentary here, for Musk is just the kind of guy who would have hung out in this forum, had he not been preoccupied making a trillion dollars. His risk factors section seems to be all about risk of government interference rather than any technical challenge. Good luck with that. spike From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 12 21:36:00 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 14:36:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <005101dcf9f1$685b9820$3912c860$@rainier66.com> <00eb01dcfa6e$6189a730$249cf590$@rainier66.com> <014701dcfa88$808924c0$819b6e40$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <025f01dcfab3$7720a3b0$6561eb10$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > >>... Of course. But the external dimensions and displacement tell us little about what the craft actually does. ... >...If you are utterly unable to conceive of the fact that they have told us - under oath to Congress - of a set of things about the proposed Trump-class battleship that grossly contradict what you keep speculating, that's on you. _______________________________________________ Adrian, programs are cancelled regularly, having spent only a small fraction of what was initially allocated. Some programs really are mostly for show. I worked on one for a while: Space-Based Laser in 1989. We had a lot of those in the late 1980s, mostly to develop technology and impress the Russians into giving up their commie ways. It worked. After Mr. Gorbachev tore down that wall in late 89, most of the interest in that kind of stuff went away and the program was eventually cancelled. The tech developed for that program (adaptive mirrors) is being used in astronomy. A spinoff is used in the Webb Space Telescope. spike From spike at rainier66.com Fri Jun 12 21:41:41 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 14:41:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] spacex ipo In-Reply-To: <025d01dcfab2$378a3780$a69ea680$@rainier66.com> References: <014c01dcfa89$a25f7260$e71e5720$@rainier66.com> <016a01dcfa8e$4c74df20$e55e9d60$@rainier66.com> <019201dcfa90$dc50a6e0$94f1f4a0$@rainier66.com> <021101dcfaa8$09429340$1bc7b9c0$@rainier66.com> <025d01dcfab2$378a3780$a69ea680$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <026001dcfab4$423b44b0$c6b1ce10$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: spike at rainier66.com _______________________________________________ >...Ja. I wouldn't buy any IPO before I saw their S-1 however... >...His risk factors section seems to be all about risk of government interference rather than any technical challenge. Good luck with that. spike I will give them credit for thoroughness. Their risk factors section of their S-1 goes on for 35 pages in small font. It makes it sound like the rocket science is the easy part: https://archive.fast-edgar.com/20260520/APZZ2Q2COW22PZ5Z222D2ZZ2QUC5Z22IZ482 / From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 22:02:28 2026 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 18:02:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] spacex ipo In-Reply-To: <026001dcfab4$423b44b0$c6b1ce10$@rainier66.com> References: <014c01dcfa89$a25f7260$e71e5720$@rainier66.com> <016a01dcfa8e$4c74df20$e55e9d60$@rainier66.com> <019201dcfa90$dc50a6e0$94f1f4a0$@rainier66.com> <021101dcfaa8$09429340$1bc7b9c0$@rainier66.com> <025d01dcfab2$378a3780$a69ea680$@rainier66.com> <026001dcfab4$423b44b0$c6b1ce10$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 5:41?PM wrote: > It makes it sound like the > rocket science is the easy part: In many ways it is - relatively. Rocket science is famously complex, but it has also been very well studied for decades. A lot of the theoretical approaches are well-known, and mainly just need engineering and financial (and financial engineering) conditions to make them viable to implement, then someone (like SpaceX) to implement them. Contrast this to the economics and logistics of AI satellites - or even of Starlink, and that's been around for a while already. From benzaiboc at proton.me Sat Jun 13 06:45:23 2026 From: benzaiboc at proton.me (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 06:45:23 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Race to AGI is inevitable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/06/2026 22:41, Samantha wrote: > > Humans seem quite efficient at persuading everyone to fight one another and to "get mine" assuming there isn't enough and never can be. I don't see why malicious AGI would have much to do. > > > But what if greater intelligence leads to more grounded and benevolent ethics? For instance an intelligence seeing that only by maximizing other intelligent beings positive potential can its own choice and opportunity environment be as rich as possible and be thus enabled to maximize its own positive potential? > > What would a world be like where the goal is maximizing the positive potential of all humans and equivalently (or greater) intelligent beings? > > > It would be very different from assumption of Scarcity, never enough for everyone, get yours before someone else does world. > > With AI much less AGI purportedly able to do so many jobs in a society that just assumes you must have such income and economic utility to be OK an increasing number of people greatly fear AI and technology. They fear a world that has no place for them. > > A change of fundamental operating ethical basis and goal could greatly ameliorate this. Removing IP laws that effectively create artificial scarcity and massive income inequality is another part. > > > I believe and pretty much always have that we can reach a level of technological Abundance where all the needs and many of the desires of EVERYONE can be met with a small fraction of productive capacity. But even with uber tech like machine phase nanotech we will never reach that point with our current assumptions and attitudes and the practices that grow out of them. > > Achieving the future of our dreams, achieving the fulfillment of humanity, is not just a matter of technology. It requires a quite real and necessary change of consciousness. Yes, indeed. I agree with everything there, the problem is that there is very little prospect of that 'change of consciousness' ever happening on the scale it needs to, with any of the methods we've tried in the past. Just like indefinite lifespans, never having achieved it before doesn't mean it's impossible. We just don't know how to do it yet. I think there are three problems: Convincing a large enough number of people that it's desirable, convincing the same people that it's possible, and then figuring out and showing them how to make the changes that will make it happen (probably the easiest one to solve). The first of those three is probably the hardest. We're up against not only cultural conditioning, but evolved tendencies that are deeply entrenched. But your comment about greater intelligence suggests an alternative path, that takes things (specifically, the economy) out of the hands of the creatures that are not becoming more intelligent and puts it in the hands of those that are. Which simplifies down to two tasks: 1) Verifying that your assumption is true (because if it's not, we're screwed either way), and 2) setting things up that result in the inevitable transfer of control over the economy. Then the change in consciousness would follow the change in circumstances, not precede it. This is a rather 'Steve-Jobsian' approach to changing things, which makes me a bit uncomfortable, but we know that approach works. I don't know how to do either of those two tasks, but some people might. -- Ben From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jun 13 10:02:36 2026 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 11:02:36 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Anthropic disables Fable and Mythos AI models Message-ID: Anthropic disables Fable and Mythos AI models after U.S. government bars it from giving foreigners access By Jeremy Kahn June 13, 2026 Quotes: Anthropic was forced to disable all access to its newest AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, late on Friday after the U.S. Commerce Department used national security export controls to bar the company from distributing the models to any foreign national. The directive includes not just people located outside the U.S., but also any foreign national in the U.S., including Anthropic?s own non-citizen employees. Given the scope of the directive, Anthropic argued it had no choice but to disable the models for all users. It clarified that access to its less powerful Claude models, including its latest Claude Opus 4.8 model, was not affected. --------------------- Is this a real fear of dangerous AI? Or just a marketing gimmick? BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 13 10:32:59 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 06:32:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: <025f01dcfab3$7720a3b0$6561eb10$@rainier66.com> References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <005101dcf9f1$685b9820$3912c860$@rainier66.com> <00eb01dcfa6e$6189a730$249cf590$@rainier66.com> <014701dcfa88$808924c0$819b6e40$@rainier66.com> <025f01dcfab3$7720a3b0$6561eb10$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 5:37?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *>Adrian, programs are cancelled regularly,* *Yes, that is very true especially for military projects, and I am certain that, although many billions of dollars will be spent, a "Trump Class Battleship" will NEVER be built, however I'm equally certain that our Dear Leader is far too stupid to realize that. * *Why am I so certain it will never be built? Because the nation's naval architects are all very smart people and they realize that building such a ship is an idiotic idea and the only reason they're going through the motions is because they were ordered to do so by the president because he thinks such a ship would look cool. And because even if the military construction proceeded perfectly, and it never does, it would take at least 10 years before such a ship could ever go to sea. And in 10 years dirt cheap very intelligent drones would make such a dinosaur of a ship even more ridiculous than it is today. And in 10 years our 80 year old overweight junk food loving president will no longer be president. * *Why am I so certain that the president doesn't realize any of this? Because **a man as egomaniacal as our current POTUS would never allow his name to be placed on something that he knew was doomed to failure. * *By the way, although I am certain he will not be president in 10 years I wish I was as certain that in 2 1/2 years he will no longer be president, but I am not. In 10 years, if Mr. Jupiter Brain doesn't object, the USA might coronate King Donald II. * * John K Clark * > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > > > > >>... Of course. But the external dimensions and displacement tell us > little about what the craft actually does. > > ... > > >...If you are utterly unable to conceive of the fact that they have told > us - under oath to Congress - of a set of things about the proposed > Trump-class battleship that grossly contradict what you keep speculating, > that's on you. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 13 10:55:01 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 06:55:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Anthropic disables Fable and Mythos AI models In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 13, 2026 at 6:04?AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> **Is this a real fear of dangerous AI? Or just a marketing gimmick?* *Given the fact that in just a few days Mythos was able to discover thousands of previously unknown zero-day vulnerabilities to our critical software infrastructure, some of which have existed for decades, and given the fact that it seems to know a great deal about germ warfare, it sure sounds like more than a marketing gimmick to me. And if it is a marketing gimmick it isn't working because it's making thousands of Anthropic's customers who have not been given full access to Mythos furious. * * John K Clark* Anthropic disables Fable and Mythos AI models after U.S. government > bars it from giving foreigners access > By Jeremy Kahn June 13, 2026 > > < > https://fortune.com/2026/06/13/anthropic-disables-fable-mythos-export-controls-national-security-threat/ > > > Quotes: > Anthropic was forced to disable all access to its newest AI models, > Fable 5 and Mythos 5, late on Friday after the U.S. Commerce > Department used national security export controls to bar the company > from distributing the models to any foreign national. > > The directive includes not just people located outside the U.S., but > also any foreign national in the U.S., including Anthropic?s own > non-citizen employees. > > Given the scope of the directive, Anthropic argued it had no choice > but to disable the models for all users. It clarified that access to > its less powerful Claude models, including its latest Claude Opus 4.8 > model, was not affected. > --------------------- > > Is this a real fear of dangerous AI? Or just a marketing gimmick? > BillK > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 13 11:18:46 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 07:18:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Elon_Musk_has_become_the_world=E2=80=99s_first_t?= =?utf-8?q?rillionaire?= Message-ID: *Elon Musk has become the world?s first trillionaire* *I wonder how long it will be before we have a Quadrillionaire.* *John K Clark See what's on my list at Extropolis * *oi4* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 13 12:00:50 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 08:00:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?US_Bars_Foreigners_From_Using_Anthropic=E2=80=99?= =?utf-8?q?s_Most_Advanced_A=2EI=2E_Models?= Message-ID: Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free without a subscription. U.S. Bars Foreigners From Using Anthropic?s Most Advanced A.I. Models The company said on Friday night that the federal government had ordered limits on its Mythos and Fable 5 A.I. systems, citing national security concerns. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/12/technology/anthropic-mythos-fable5-blocked.html?unlocked_article_code=1.p1A.qK3j.QSTJ-wimQQl7&smid=em-share -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 13 12:14:28 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 08:14:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Nuclear clocks tick for the first time Message-ID: *Nuclear clocks tick for the first time* *John K Clark See what's on my list at Extropolis * c'6 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 13 17:14:51 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 13:14:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Anthropic shuts down Fable, Mythos models following Trump admin directive Message-ID: *Anthropic shuts down Fable, Mythos models following Trump admin directive* *John K Clark See what's on my list at Extropolis * *2w2* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Jun 13 20:12:38 2026 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 13:12:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <005101dcf9f1$685b9820$3912c860$@rainier66.com> <00eb01dcfa6e$6189a730$249cf590$@rainier66.com> <014701dcfa88$808924c0$819b6e40$@rainier66.com> <025f01dcfab3$7720a3b0$6561eb10$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: John, thinking about it, I am not entirely sure that something like a battleship might make sense in the drone era. Battleships were resistant to ton-class shells hitting them. A ship with foot-thick armor would not be damaged by a light-weight drone if it hit the armor. You would still need something like a double hull with the space filled with styrofoam to resist torpedoes. Such a ship could maybe get away without point defense, such as is used on modern ships, because it would just ignore drone hits. Not certain how useful such a ship would be, but there is no way a small drone is going to do serious damage by hitting a foot of armor. Keith Best wishes, Keith On Sat, Jun 13, 2026 at 3:34?AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 5:37?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *>Adrian, programs are cancelled regularly,* > > > *Yes, that is very true especially for military projects, and I am certain > that, although many billions of dollars will be spent, a "Trump Class > Battleship" will NEVER be built, however I'm equally certain that our Dear > Leader is far too stupid to realize that. * > > *Why am I so certain it will never be built? Because the nation's naval > architects are all very smart people and they realize that building such a > ship is an idiotic idea and the only reason they're going through the > motions is because they were ordered to do so by the president because he > thinks such a ship would look cool. And because even if the military > construction proceeded perfectly, and it never does, it would take at least > 10 years before such a ship could ever go to sea. And in 10 years dirt > cheap very intelligent drones would make such a dinosaur of a ship even > more ridiculous than it is today. And in 10 years our 80 year old > overweight junk food loving president will no longer be president. * > > *Why am I so certain that the president doesn't realize any of this? > Because **a man as egomaniacal as our current POTUS would never allow his > name to be placed on something that he knew was doomed to failure. * > > *By the way, although I am certain he will not be president in 10 years I > wish I was as certain that in 2 1/2 years he will no longer be president, > but I am not. In 10 years, if Mr. Jupiter Brain doesn't object, the USA > might coronate King Donald II. * > > * John K Clark * > > > > > > > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of >> Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat >> >> > >> >>... Of course. But the external dimensions and displacement tell us >> little about what the craft actually does. >> >> ... >> >> >...If you are utterly unable to conceive of the fact that they have told >> us - under oath to Congress - of a set of things about the proposed >> Trump-class battleship that grossly contradict what you keep speculating, >> that's on you. >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 13 23:36:58 2026 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 19:36:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?US_Bars_Foreigners_From_Using_Anthropic=E2=80=99?= =?utf-8?q?s_Most_Advanced_A=2EI=2E_Models?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: * Why Claude Fable 5 Was Just Forced Offline* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Jun 13 23:42:21 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 16:42:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <005101dcf9f1$685b9820$3912c860$@rainier66.com> <00eb01dcfa6e$6189a730$249cf590$@rainier66.com> <014701dcfa88$808924c0$819b6e40$@rainier66.com> <025f01dcfab3$7720a3b0$6561eb10$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <011e01dcfb8e$481648a0$d842d9e0$@rainier66.com> From: John Clark Sent: Saturday, 13 June, 2026 3:33 AM To: ExI chat list Cc: spike at rainier66.com Subject: Re: [ExI] robo-rescue On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 5:37?PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: >Adrian, programs are cancelled regularly, >?Yes, that is very true especially for military projects, and I am certain that, although many billions of dollars will be spent, a "Trump Class Battleship" will NEVER be built? You are beginning to understand. Some projects need to not only be kept secret, that fact that the program exists at all also must be kept secret. The Manhattan Project was one example. POTUS knew and authorized it, but VPOTUS did not, nor did congress. Absurdities needed to take place to cover for it. For instance, the uranium refinement process needed a lot of wire, but copper was very scarce, being needed for ammo. The solution was to use the silver in the treasury. To avoid arousing suspicion, some gold was also moved to Los Alamos, for it made little sense to request silver without also requesting gold, if one is using the bullion to pay for that which paper money was not used. They needed to keep secret that the silver was being melted and recast into wire. >?however I'm equally certain that our Dear Leader is far too stupid to realize that?. And STILL it doesn?t occur to you that he is playing chess while you play checkers. >...Why am I so certain it will never be built? We know why. The program is a decoy for something else. >?Why am I so certain that the president doesn't realize any of this? Because a man as egomaniacal as our current POTUS would never allow his name to be placed on something that he knew was doomed to failure? Ja! So do you know what that funding is really doing? Neither do we. There is no need to remind me of that testimony under oath before congress. Notice you have never heard of anyone prosecuted for this sort of testimony before, for we know why it works this way: congress is in charge of funding these projects, but many, perhaps most, representatives are not cleared and are not clearable. >?By the way, although I am certain he will not be president in 10 years I wish I was as certain that in 2 1/2 years he will no longer be president, but I am not?. Idea: let us enter a wager of sorts. No need to bother with currency, which means nothing to either of us at the level I am willing to wager. I prefer low-stakes betting, or symbolic wagering as we did in Ideas Futures. Let us ?wager? that the current POTUS will not be POTUS on 21 Jan 2029. The prize: respect for the winner by the loser for all eternity, or until we forget, whichever comes first. >?In 10 years, if Mr. Jupiter Brain doesn't object, the USA might coronate King Donald II? John K Clark The reason I can bet against that notion with such confidence is the US constitution, that marvelous document which prevents this sort of thing, amendment 22. Are you in John? Anyone else wish to join this ?bet?? I will only take the NOT position. spike -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat > On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > >>... Of course. But the external dimensions and displacement tell us little about what the craft actually does. ... >...If you are utterly unable to conceive of the fact that they have told us - under oath to Congress - of a set of things about the proposed Trump-class battleship that grossly contradict what you keep speculating, that's on you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Jun 13 23:50:37 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 16:50:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Elon_Musk_has_become_the_world=E2=80=99s_first_t?= =?utf-8?q?rillionaire?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <013a01dcfb8f$6fc133a0$4f439ae0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] Elon Musk has become the world?s first trillionaire Elon Musk has become the world?s first trillionaire I wonder how long it will be before we have a Quadrillionaire. John K Clark See what's on my list at Extropolis oi4 I estimate 3 to 5 years. By then, SAI is likely to produce the unimaginable wealth many of us have dreamed about most of our lives. At that time, we will likely need to use log scales to estimate wealth. A fun thought occurred to me. We, everyone here now, is closer to Jeff Bezos? wealth than Jeff is to Elon?s. But only if we continue to think linearly. We are fortunate to be born late enough in history such that log scales need to be used to describe wealth. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Jun 14 00:16:15 2026 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 17:16:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo-rescue In-Reply-To: References: <00a701dcf8fe$e19e6cb0$a4db4610$@rainier66.com> <00df01dcf8ff$735d5e40$5a181ac0$@rainier66.com> <001e01dcf9dc$4708c270$d51a4750$@rainier66.com> <003901dcf9eb$04b67750$0e2365f0$@rainier66.com> <005101dcf9f1$685b9820$3912c860$@rainier66.com> <00eb01dcfa6e$6189a730$249cf590$@rainier66.com> <014701dcfa88$808924c0$819b6e40$@rainier66.com> <025f01dcfab3$7720a3b0$6561eb10$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <016d01dcfb93$045ab510$0d101f30$@rainier66.com> From: Keith Henson Sent: Saturday, 13 June, 2026 1:13 PM To: ExI chat list Cc: John Clark ; spike at rainier66.com Subject: Re: [ExI] robo-rescue John, thinking about it, I am not entirely sure that something like a battleship might make sense in the drone era. Battleships were resistant to ton-class shells hitting them. A ship with foot-thick armor would not be damaged by a light-weight drone if it hit the armor. You would still need something like a double hull with the space filled with styrofoam to resist torpedoes. Such a ship could maybe get away without point defense, such as is used on modern ships, because it would just ignore drone hits. Not certain how useful such a ship would be, but there is no way a small drone is going to do serious damage by hitting a foot of armor. Keith Best wishes, Keith Sure Keith, but there would be no need for all that mass and size, when the idea is to launch drones at enemy surface ships. I have noticed that in the video released of the recent naval battles, the intercepting item is not moving all that fast. Clearly it isn?t a projectile or even a rocket. It is likely a propeller-driven drone. Those don?t cost much, but they are raising hell. Apparently the Iranians don?t have an effective anti-drone system analogous to our Phalanx radar-guided gatling gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5DU-uoLwj4 spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: