Rationalist literary criticism by SBF, found on the birdsite - eviltoast

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.

  • self@awful.systemsM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

  • Sailor Sega Saturn@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Western sphere”? Hey buster what if the best writer to ever live is currently writing Naruto fan-fiction in Malayalam right about now?!

  • Soyweiser@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • Soyweiser@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • gerikson@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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

    • sinedpick@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

  • GSV_Spinnaker@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    All media criticism must be done with rigorously updated priors. Baysian WatchMojo will bring the world’s most rational top 10 lists.

  • Architeuthis@awful.systemsOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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’.