Bitcoin maximalism is over. Bitcoin "culture" is over. Bitcoin influencers are over. Every popular hardcore Bitcoin figure has disgraced themself in some way. Bitcoin will remain, beneficially stripped of the cult around it.

havent seen one person from OAI or Ant address Jon's argument here. the point is simple: the USG does not owe either of the large labs a business model. if the economics of selling tokens don't work due to distillation/cheap clones/Chinese AI magick, the American enterprise and consumer will be A-OK. they will benefit from hyperdeflation in the cost of digital cognition just like everyone else. the hyperscalers will be fine. it's just OAI and Ant that won't be – in their current forms at least. if they are willing to adapt, they can develop new business models. so what if the token merchants don't do well? the neoclouds will be fine. the internet companies will be fine. the consumer gets cheaper queries. the enterprise will still incorporate AI. the only world in which this isn't fine, is if you hold a quasi-religious belief that we're on the cusp of a kind of AI rapture in which one of the labs Logs On And Wins Forever, namely hits RSI and we enter some kind of sublime post economic society run by GEOTUS Dario. so to accept that Ant's business model might be suboptimal or impaired by China's commoditization is to accept the unacceptable; namely that someone other than the anointed might kick off the runaway feedback loop and that they, instead might log on and win forever. this appears to explain the discrepancy in reaction to Deepseek Moment v254 Kimi edition. everyone has bag bias, of course. but leaving that aside, most people think it's pretty much ok if Ant and OAI suffer margin compression due to Chinese distillation / industrial sabotage via open weight models. the American economy is not reliant on those two firms. they could blink out of existence and we would pretty much be ok. the AI capex supercycle will still produce tokens, closed weight or not. American firms will consume those tokens. OAI and Ant would probably still scratch a living, due to the latent preference of some token consumers to buy domestic and face off against a known entity. this is only unacceptable if you think AI is strongly path dependent; that is, if it really matters who the market leader is when AI reaches a breakout level of capability. this is true both in the good case (superintelligence, singularity, etc) and the bad case (this is the essence of safetyism). but if this sounds more like wishcasting than forecasting, you probably don't mind the labs being pressured economically. now you can clearly tell which side I'm on. I think AI is a fantastic technology which is hyperdeflating the cost of cognition and will fundamentally reshape society but there are real reasons why it wont diffuse as fast as the AGI people think it well. I would prefer an American firm achieve RSI relative to a Chinese one but I think either outcome would be suboptimal; better that we don't end up with a closed oligopoly composed of Ant/OAI. China by crushing the margins of the labs is doing everyone a favor by eliminating their pricing power and empowering the buyers of AI, namely, everyone. objections: -but you can't celebrate America losing to China! - in my opinion this is a minor victory for China but not necessarily an enduring one. USA still has the chip, datacenter, and neocloud advantage, not to mention, it still has the best frontier models. Chinese labs releasing open weight models have no business model of their own. so even if they hurt the US labs, they have nothing to show for it. it's profoundly unlike their successful dumping campaigns with solar panels, batteries, drones, etc where they eventually built big domestic industries. (if China kills American AI with open weight models, we can even the score the moment they try and release a proprietary model). even if open weights win, the USA can still leverage AI extremely well and potentally retain the aggregate compute advantage. yes, the US would be more assured of victory if OAI or Ant won forever, but I don't know if I want to live in that world. - no one will ever train a model again - this is where I think the concern is unwarranted. let's say distillation really is a golden bullet and kills big training runs. that doesn't advantage either China or the US. that's a stalemate. not to mention, the trend seems to be less focusing less on massive pretraining budgets and more on finetuning for specific genres of tasks, thinking machines style. and lastly I find it hard to believe that training runs will stop altogether. the labs can probably develop anti-distillation techniques. you could adopt a whitelist style permission for everyone using your model. different consortia could be put together to share in the cost of training a model, if it is seen as too expensive for an individual firm. - the AI buildout is path dependent and OAI/Ant are now load bearing GDP infrastructure - it would be a significant setback for investors if they had to cancel their IPOs and suffered big markdowns, and some neoclouds with lab based RPOs would suffer for a while, but everyone would be fine, really. does Microsoft need OAI or Ant? does Meta? does Google? ordinary Americans have ~no exposure to either OAI or Ant. would the world want any less compute if it turns out to be another order of magnitude cheaper? certainly not. as we all know at this point, consumption would go up. I don't think the economy is so dependent on the labs that it couldn't handle their margins compressing.

A fully loaded AI datacenter with the latest GPUs costs around $300 million per acre. There are 900 million acres of US farmland. Converting just 0.01% of that into DCs would cost $26 trillion dollars Imagine thinking this could possibly deprive us of farmland. How utterly incurious do you have to be

From an ecological perspective, western frontier models are a common pool resource that Chinese open weight models exploit. They are finite, because if you exploit them too hard, they lose the incentive and resources to train new models, and everyone loses. (Chinese models aren’t magically good, they are good because Ant and OAI spend a lot of money on training). If you think about it like a parasite/host relationship, Chinese models are a parasite that needs to calibrate its exploitation so that the host doesn’t die. Kimi arguably made a mistake. It overexploited the host and imperiled the Ant OAI growth story. So at equilibrium you’d expect open weight models to “tastefully” exploit the western frontier and choose to remain 6 months behind and slightly inferior capability wise. However perhaps Kimi, Qwen, GLM, deepseek etc may not be playing an equilibrium game. They might be under orders to puncture the American lab growth story, even if it means killing their own host. Maybe the time is now because OAI and Ant are most vulnerable ahead of the IPO. Maybe Xi just had a bad day. Or maybe Kimi defected from the gentleman’s agreement that the Chinese labs share to not kill the host that they all rely on.

Platner's trainwreck of a campaign is an incredible wealth of data because it shows us exactly where the Democrat establishment line of tolerance is: ------ACCEPTABLE------- - describing self as a communist - being a fake working class nepo baby - ACAB comments - fantasizing about rape - having a shirtless Kik account - cheating on wife multiple times - having a literal Nazi tattoo - physically and emotionally abusing a conservative woman ------UNACCEPTABLE------- - sexually assaulting a liberal woman

i've been listening to a lot of national anthems lately and it's puzzling they all sound like they were composed by wagner. but some countries are new. why not pop or soft rock. like south sudan could have called up coldplay?

Mexico: makes noise outside England’s hotel so they don’t sleep well USA: Trump calls Infantino personally so our top striker’s suspension is waived There’s levels to this game 🦅 🇺🇸 🦅

The absolute moral chaos inherent in the debate as to whether Elon “killed” millions of people in the global south is precisely why we do not as a society reason in raw consequentialist terms. Because everyone with agency ends up with uncountable moral culpability for virtually every action or inaction. When distant lives or those 5000 years in the future are worth exactly the same as your own, you end up completely paralyzed. No one reasons like that - aside from shrimp welfare maximizing polycule members in SF - so we can happily disregard the entire debate. All the gotchas and “by your logics” are simply downstream of the fact that consequentialism is an alien and inhuman philosophy that no one real actually espouses.