original is here, but you aren’t missing any context, that’s the twit.
I could go on and on about the failings of Shakespear… but really I shouldn’t need to: the Bayesian priors are pretty damning. About half the people born since 1600 have been born in the past 100 years, but it gets much worse that that. When Shakespear wrote almost all Europeans were busy farming, and very few people attended university; few people were even literate – probably as low as ten million people. By contrast there are now upwards of a billion literate people in the Western sphere. What are the odds that the greatest writer would have been born in 1564? The Bayesian priors aren’t very favorable.
edited to add this seems to be an excerpt from the fawning book the big short/moneyball guy wrote about him that was recently released.
uhm according to my Bayesian priors and some very basic rational thought it’s impossible that classical music was good (the majority of its target audience didn’t even have access to the cultural enrichment provided by computers or the internet) and it therefore follows that the height of music is I Wanna Be Software by Grimes
According to my Bayesian priors, there’s simply no way the Messiah and Savior could have lived 2000 years ago. Much more likely She is around today.
Also, why wouldn’t the messiah be a billionaire or pop star? My priors say God wouldn’t waste his time with the poors who have low reach and virtue
@self “my Bayesian priors and some very basic rational thought” is my new favourite way to say “some idea based upon my personal bias”. 😎
source: my posterior
“Western sphere”? Hey buster what if the best writer to ever live is currently writing Naruto fan-fiction in Malayalam right about now?!
I’m really interested in this book. Lewis has gotten a lot of flack for (allegedly) not portraying SBF as a scheming monster, but as most of that flack has come from people losing crypto money, I really can’t feel anything but schadenfreude. It would be hilarious if SBF beat the rap, even though he’d be in real danger from unhinged lunatics wanting revenge.
Here’s a New Yorker piece about his viewpoint: https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/michael-lewiss-big-contrarian-bet
From what I hear about the trial it ain’t going SBF’s way however.
Edit Molly White is covering the trial: https://newsletter.mollywhite.net/p/ftx-defrauded-its-customers-says
The defense team asked [a witness] whether he understood that cryptocurrencies were volatile and risky, which he said he did; however, prosecutors later gave him the opportunity to clarify that he believed crypto to be risky because of his tokens’ volatility, not because FTX might disappear with the tokens entirely.
LMFAO
It would be extremely convenient for Sam “16 million dollar penthouse” Bankman-Fried if this whole deal was just an “oopsie, silly me.” I get the schadenfreude angle but this guy totally doesn’t deserve freedom.
What I’m the most thrilled about, however, is how he has effectively dismantled the rational case for “effective altruism” by showing how mind-bogglingly stupid the idea “earn to give” is. It’s so easy to shut them down now with 3 magic letters: SBF
“Unlikely things never happen” - Sam Bankman-Fried, who has a big brain
Hey SBF, brevity is the soul of twit.
- Shakespeare, if he was alive today
It is amazing how bad at reasoning these people are. I also saw a tweet by the director of operations and special projects (the one who has musk kids) who basically said ‘I have been thinking about this for about 7 years, and I think we could solve the malicious AGI problem by designing virtual worlds which are more interesting to it than the real world’(somebody doesn’t think a lot about set theory, anthropomorphizes AI and thinks their driving force will be curiousity) Which is such a nuts statement for a smart person who spend 7 years musing about it (she is also listed on wikipedia as somebody who works in AI) that it all baffles me. Also these people are worth millions while im poor. It is nuts.
What do you mean with the set theory comment?
If you create interesting simulations in our universe they would be inside our universe (and there would prob also be multiple variants) so the baseline real world is still more interesting than the simulations. If it is driven by curiosity it cannot be kept in a simulation like that.
The STEMlordery just drips from that statement.
@Architeuthis I’m guessing that Bayesian priors has added meaning within their cult, that they use to justify all kinds of nonsense.
It’s their fancy way of saying ‘I think.’
It’s supposed to be from the book the moneyball guy wrote about him that was recently released, according to several seconds of googling ‘SBF on Shakespear’.
All media criticism must be done with rigorously updated priors. Baysian WatchMojo will bring the world’s most rational top 10 lists.
@Architeuthis he’s gonna deploy the same smartarse, Look How Clever I Am demeanor in court isn’t he?
Can you share the original for us plebs who don’t have twitter/X ? Getting paywalled over here.
Like I said, you aren’t missing anything,
Also I just added the image text in the description in case lemmy is weird with inline images.
Lol you weren’t wrong.
