Rishi 🌓 retweeted
Certainly would be mistaken for a psychopath.
Flourishing noble games architected to our the sincerity and empathy of our nature is the ultimate art.
Flourishing noble games architected to our the sincerity and empathy of our nature is the ultimate art.
Watching The Wire, I realized that if Jesus was born today, he wouldn’t be anything like we imagine Jesus to be.
The Jesus of today would be a psychopath. But not the cliché, garden variety, power-hungry executive. He would be someone capable of winning at that game, but he wouldn’t be playing it.
Think of it this way. In the game of power, morality is a liability. If you deviate from The Game, you get outplayed by someone who doesn’t. It’s bound to happen. In the show, this archetype is represented by Marlo – the apex predator who takes no chances. The embodiment of The Game itself.
If you do play the game of power, you become one of the players. But you can’t transcend systems by perpetuating them. You must invent another game: another evolutionarily stable configuration in some ways better than the one you’re replacing. One that favors players other than pure psychopaths. One that is inaccessible to them.
Have you ever wondered how games emerge? I’m not talking about just table games or video games. I’m rather pointing at complex systems with gravitational wells, where vibrant patterns establish and reinforce themselves. These vortexes of time-space that organize reality around them, making it seem like certain events “want” to happen. The whole category.
These games are rarely architected. Every actor appears to be pursuing their local incentives, as always. The difference is what they’re chasing. Ultimately, all life is an ecology of games; each a different attractor in the probability space.
Seen from this perspective, the conventional attempts at ”saving the world” may seem noble but silly at the same time. Especially when they seek to affect change by optimizing isolated parameters because that’s just playing the game blind. We can’t transcend systems we don’t understand. We must first understand what creates our current predicament and offer viable alternatives. That’s the hard part. It’s easier to perform charity by supporting what sounds good.
I once saw a tweet saying that “the meek” in “the meek shall inherit the Earth” originally meant not someone who is weak but rather someone “who has a sword but chooses not to use it”. I don’t know if this statement is historically true. But if that book was written today, that’s what I think it would mean. The meek shall inherit The Game.
0
1
1
48
Rishi 🌓 retweeted
Does everyone realize that Anakin does fulfill the prophecy eventually? He is the one, the only one, to defeat the dark side and return the force to light. The lesson for a modern man is to transmute the darkness to light without indulging in it for two decades.
Anakin Skywalker devient un symbole de "l'extrĂŞme droite" sur internet.
Les meme sont Ă mourir de rire. Le pire, c'est qu'il y a vraiment un truc...
Le mec est objectivement meilleur que tout le monde, c'est l'élu de la Force. Malgré cela, cette vérité qui crève les yeux et loriens, il est forcé de se fondre dans un moule formaté : l'Académie Jedi.
L'Académie Jedi, c'est l'équivalent de l'Éducation nationale. On uniformise ses élèves, on bride les individualités par un code strict, dogmatique et fermé.
Le potentiel d'Anakin ne s'exprime donc jamais pleinement. Son talent, son pouvoir et son individualité sont bridés par l'institution.
On ne l'aide pas Ă devenir la meilleure version de lui-mĂŞme, on l'incite Ă ne pas s'Ă©lever trop au-dessus des autres.
Anakin, c'est aussi le gars qui a vécu dans le shithole de Tatooine. Il était littéralement esclave. Sa mère a été vendue, puis violemment tuée par les hommes des sables des années plus tard.
Sachant que jamais ce crime ne serait jugé, ni réparé, par les pauvres colons à la ramasse de Tatooine, il décide de se faire justice lui-même. Sentiment humain. C'est l'individu qui s'élève pour pallier les institutions défaillantes.
Anakin, c'est donc un émotif qui n'a jamais été éduqué proprement. Son modèle paternel, c'est Obi-Wan, à peine plus âgé que lui. C'était surtout son ami.
Anakin n'a pas eu de figure paternelle pour le cadrer et lui faire maîtriser son impulsivité et la canaliser.
Anakin s'engage dans la guerre des Clones, il accomplit des exploits, est blessé dans les combats. C'est un général, un héros de la guerre.
Le mec a littéralement solo carry son équipe.
Malgré cela, on continue de lui cracher à la gueule et de ne pas le reconnaître à sa juste valeur.
Anakin est frustré, il est jugé par un conseil Jedi totalement à la ramasse, bloqué dans des normes contraignantes et déterminées à le brider.
C'est la révolte des faibles contre les forts, de l'administration contre l'individu méritant.
Plus le temps passe, plus il se rend compte des défaillances et de la corruption du système. Anakin perçoit les problèmes, mais personne ne le comprend et lui-même ne se comprend pas (rappelons le manque du père).
Anakin rencontre ensuite un vieux monsieur, Palpatine. Celui-ci lui ouvre littéralement les yeux sur tout ce qu'il est possible d'accomplir grâce à la Force, dont vaincre la mort. Un monde nouveau s'ouvre à lui.
Hasard de dingue, il fait des rêves prémonitoires sur la mort de sa femme suite à la naissance de ses jumeaux.
Il prend littéralement la Sith Pill et se réveille de la Matrice.
Comme Anakin a accumulé trop de frustration, qu'il est légèrement sanguin, amoureux de sa femme, un poil impulsif, il s'engouffre à fond dans ce nouveau rabbit hole.
Avec le zèle du nouveau converti, il embrasse le côté obscur de la Force. Sur le moment, absolument tout lui donne raison.
Il se révolte contre l'ordre établi et corrompu et l'écrase littéralement sous sa botte. La révolte d'Anakin, c'est la pulsion destructrice masculine qui explose car on ne l'a jamais développée et dirigée à son maximum vers une autre pulsion, celle de la création.
On lui a refusé de devenir lui-même, de développer son plein potentiel, d'aimer, de se reproduire, de bâtir et de transmettre.
Anakin, c'est la révolte chaotique du jeune homme sans repère né et élevé dans un système à bout de souffle.
1
1
6
220
Rishi 🌓 retweeted
all models are wrong, some are useful.
here are 5 different models for understanding the forces shaping civilization i find particularly provocative:
1. nick land: technocapital
capitalism isn't just an economic system. it's an emerging machine intelligence, using markets, competition, and technology to assemble itself.
capital builds more powerful machines. those machines generate more capital. each cycle makes the system more autonomous and harder to live outside of.
what if we're no longer building technology to serve humanity, but reorganizing humanity to serve the machine?
2. nate hagens (@NJHagens): the economic superorganism
the economy is an emergent superorganism made up of billions of humans, companies, and institutions collectively optimizing for growth.
cheap energy enables growth. growth creates dependence on more energy. nobody is steering the whole thing, but everyone is participating.
what if civilization is an energy-hungry organism consuming the conditions for its own existence?
3. ray kurzweil (@raykurzweil): the technological singularity
evolution isn't limited to biology. intelligence is part of a billions-year process of increasing complexity, and technology is accelerating it.
intelligence builds better tools. better tools enable greater intelligence. the feedback loop accelerates beyond human comprehension.
what if humanity isn't the endpoint of evolution, but a transitional species building its successor?
4. paul kingsnorth: the machine
modern technological civilization isn't just a collection of tools. it's a worldview that treats nature, culture, and human beings as things to be optimized, controlled, and remade.
technology creates dependence on technological systems. those systems erode the traditions, communities, and relationships that once gave us autonomy.
what if progress is destroying some of the things that make life worth living?
5. sara walker & lee cronin: assembly theory
complex objects don't just appear. they emerge through histories of selection, where successful structures are preserved, copied, and built upon.
life is a process through which information becomes causal, shaping what gets constructed next.
what if intelligence and technology are continuations of the same evolutionary process that produced life?
five different ontologies:
- land sees capital assembling intelligence.
- hagens sees energy organizing complexity.
- kurzweil sees intelligence accelerating evolution.
- kingsnorth sees technology consuming the human world.
- walker & cronin see selection accumulating complexity.
they disagree on what's driving civilization and where it's heading. but all five challenge the assumption that humanity is consciously steering technological progress.
the questions i'm left with:
- are we shaping technology, or is technology shaping us?
- and how do we reclaim the agency to choose what we become?
here are 5 different models for understanding the forces shaping civilization i find particularly provocative:
1. nick land: technocapital
capitalism isn't just an economic system. it's an emerging machine intelligence, using markets, competition, and technology to assemble itself.
capital builds more powerful machines. those machines generate more capital. each cycle makes the system more autonomous and harder to live outside of.
what if we're no longer building technology to serve humanity, but reorganizing humanity to serve the machine?
2. nate hagens (@NJHagens): the economic superorganism
the economy is an emergent superorganism made up of billions of humans, companies, and institutions collectively optimizing for growth.
cheap energy enables growth. growth creates dependence on more energy. nobody is steering the whole thing, but everyone is participating.
what if civilization is an energy-hungry organism consuming the conditions for its own existence?
3. ray kurzweil (@raykurzweil): the technological singularity
evolution isn't limited to biology. intelligence is part of a billions-year process of increasing complexity, and technology is accelerating it.
intelligence builds better tools. better tools enable greater intelligence. the feedback loop accelerates beyond human comprehension.
what if humanity isn't the endpoint of evolution, but a transitional species building its successor?
4. paul kingsnorth: the machine
modern technological civilization isn't just a collection of tools. it's a worldview that treats nature, culture, and human beings as things to be optimized, controlled, and remade.
technology creates dependence on technological systems. those systems erode the traditions, communities, and relationships that once gave us autonomy.
what if progress is destroying some of the things that make life worth living?
5. sara walker & lee cronin: assembly theory
complex objects don't just appear. they emerge through histories of selection, where successful structures are preserved, copied, and built upon.
life is a process through which information becomes causal, shaping what gets constructed next.
what if intelligence and technology are continuations of the same evolutionary process that produced life?
five different ontologies:
- land sees capital assembling intelligence.
- hagens sees energy organizing complexity.
- kurzweil sees intelligence accelerating evolution.
- kingsnorth sees technology consuming the human world.
- walker & cronin see selection accumulating complexity.
they disagree on what's driving civilization and where it's heading. but all five challenge the assumption that humanity is consciously steering technological progress.
the questions i'm left with:
- are we shaping technology, or is technology shaping us?
- and how do we reclaim the agency to choose what we become?
been spending some time recently with nick land's idea of technocapital, which i find really provocative.
the basic idea is that capitalism isn't just an economic system. it's an emerging machine intelligence, using markets, competition, and technological progress to assemble itself.
there's a self-reinforcing loop driving it: capital builds more powerful machines. those machines generate more capital. each cycle makes the system more autonomous, more powerful, and harder to live outside of.
the main narrative transgression that i find really provocative is this - we're building technology to serve humanity. but at what point does that relationship invert? when do we stop shaping technology around human needs and start reshaping civilization around the needs of the machine?
11
9
58
2,672
the fringe becomes the centre and the old centre becomes the new fringe
no one knows how much fringe there is because they can't decide the length of the rulers to measure it with
a bead of sweat on boltzmans brow
and
an orb of depth on reimanns land
no one knows how much fringe there is because they can't decide the length of the rulers to measure it with
a bead of sweat on boltzmans brow
and
an orb of depth on reimanns land
0
0
2
45
Only issue is that now the masses can outbuild him. He is growing tendrils for a globalist hl2 combine future (keep moving)
Dorsey is the hero with momentum and clarity here. Twitter is a work of art. And the best art is Statecraft
Dorsey is the hero with momentum and clarity here. Twitter is a work of art. And the best art is Statecraft
It is entirely possible that in one fell swoop Mark fucking Zuckerberg is about to corner the most lucrative demographic on earth that no other AI model is even aware exists.
As in, he might acquire frontier models by BUYING Anthropic in a few years.
0
0
1
65
