podcasts
Collection
Collection for podcasts • 511 items • Updated • 2
text stringlengths 15 1.82k |
|---|
Speaker A: Welcome to Debrief. After our episode with Vitalik Buterin his philosophy, Diack David, after I read that article, I really felt something like, it was a fantastic article for me. Yeah, I felt, I don't know, he was very much creating a unified theory for a way of approaching steps the world. Yeah. And the wa... |
Speaker B: I think the way I, the lens that I view this article is similar to the way the lens that I view crypto as a whole. Crypto is coordination technology. That is the optimistic hope for it on the cosmetic layer, on the surface layer, it kind of seems like casino technology, and maybe that is what it is cosmetica... |
Speaker A: No, yeah, it makes sense. I have a lot of worries about just straight technology accelerationism. Right. So, like, do you think it's a good idea that everybody in the world can have access to some sort of bio kit where they can genetically engineer 3d printing viruses? Yeah, the next version of COVID Right, ... |
Speaker B: Like, it feels a little bit like. |
Speaker A: Anarchy, I think you can get to some pretty bad outcomes right now. It's like somebody who's full IAC might say, well, if that starts to happen, then, well, those same bio kits can be used by people to like, you know, create mRNA vaccines to like, I don't know, like, maybe there's an argument against it, but... |
Speaker B: It'S because you made that choice. |
Speaker A: Yeah. So it's a power back to the people. Right? And so, like, an individual has that sort of defensive. Well, what did Vitalik say? Armoring the sheep. Like, we get to armor all of the sheep. And you can resist, in this one small pocket of digital assets, you can resist nation state attack. There's somethin... |
Speaker B: You're saying you're not allowed to defend yourself. Right? Like, you're not allowed to bear arms. |
Speaker A: Yeah, it's basically like, it's kind of like a protocol, like freedom of speech, I would say. Right. It's just, it's very much, you know, distributed, decentralized, defensive type of technology. And anyway, one thing that Vitalik's DIAC essay did for me was actually give me more of a framework for articulat... |
Speaker B: There's no point of defensive technology. That's too much. You can always have more. |
Speaker A: And the beauty of what Vitalik, I think, proposed is it's just such a big tent. Can everybody, the only people, in my opinion, who couldn't get on board with DIAC are, like, authoritarians who actually want the centralization control. They have some vested interest in gaining power and making sure that it's ... |
Speaker B: There's a spiritual alignment, I think, to the whole sovereign individual concepts. A maximally defensive tech stack just feels like every single human is their own Fort Knox. Every single human has their identity that they manage via crypto protocols, their money that they manage via crypto protocols. They ... |
Speaker A: 100%. It's defensive. |
Speaker B: Like, people who attack with it. Yeah. |
Speaker A: TCP IP is like very distributed, right? All of these different, different nodes. I mean, it literally is world war three resistant. |
Speaker B: You know, does that make it defensive, though? Cause I think it's like some technologies are gonna be a little bit of both. Right. Like, you can commit cyber war on the Internet. So it's not strictly defensive. |
Speaker A: I think the Internet is totally defensive because it's like, you can't censor free speech on, like, tcp ip. It just like, lets it go. |
Speaker B: Does that make it defensive? Does that his fit his. It definitely fits his decentralized definition well, defensive. |
Speaker A: Like the deep in his essay, you know, his Vitalik's take on it was the D can stand for all sorts of different things. It can stand for defensive. It can stand for decentralized. He used some other adjectives, right. |
Speaker B: But then as a meme, isn't it kind of just a nebulous category if the D can mean a handful of different things? The idea is to, like, define a category of technologies that are. |
Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, I think you could do defensive, but you could also. I think he was leaving some space for other communities to kind of latch onto the D and just like, make the D theirs, but make the D there. Yeah. So I'm not going to touch that one, but, yeah. So you're not going to touch the d. Yeah, I'm not ... |
Speaker B: Accelerationism. |
Speaker A: Dow. |
Speaker B: Dow. |
Speaker A: Acceleration is. Dow's everywhere. Anyway. What did you think of his, his p doom of 10%? You comfortable with that? |
Speaker B: Yeah, ten percent's a lot, bro. That's a lot. |
Speaker A: It's not, not as bad as Yukowski. He was 99. |
Speaker B: Like this number where like, you need to pay attention to it, but if you do pay attention to it and you put concerted effort into managing it, it seems overcomeable. And that's kind of like one of the big punch lines of his article. We didn't touch on this because we didn't have time, but like, a lot of his,... |
Speaker A: Yeah, environmental externality. |
Speaker B: So that's kind of like how you overcome 10% p doom is like, 10% p doom is like, that's too high of a risk to manage, but it's also low enough where you can actually apply pressure in places and reduce that down to, like, 0.1. |
Speaker A: Yeah. I found myself, after reading this, probably less concerned. I mean, like, since the Le Zurida kowski, that was, like, peak concern for me about immediately after that episode, peak existential, like, oh, my God, you went. |
Speaker B: And had a drink after that one, didn't you? |
Speaker A: Yeah, it was rough, but I think. So where was I going with that? Yeah, his p doom being 10%. I mean, he equated that to the risk that in your life that you'll die from some accident. Right. And it's like how much prep. I wear my seatbelt in the cardinal, right. But I don't spend all of my time worrying. |
Speaker B: But you still drive. |
Speaker A: I still drive. And I don't spend all of my time fretting or, like, you know, avoiding transportation or something like that. I just put my seatbelt on. And that's probably a reasonable way to handle a p doom of 10%. Like, everybody gonna die. Like, there's probably some reasonable regulation where we don't h... |
Speaker B: Like, he was talking about, like, russian protests and technology helping suppress political dissent in Russia, but also, like, I was part of the Black Lives Matter riots in. What year was that? 2020. And I went down there with my sister and brother in law, and they were there to protest, and I was more ther... |
Speaker A: Hey, guys. |
Speaker B: And, hey, what's up? I'm just watching. Look at the protesters to my left, please. To my right, I am just a neutral observer. Don't mind me. And then, like, I see in the back of the police line, some police officer do, like, a little bit of, like a kind of a roundup motion. Yeah, like a little bit of lasso k... |
Speaker A: A little paramilitary there? |
Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And then, so then the police line was, like, then doubled up with a second line of police, and the second line of police had pepper spray. And then they put their, like, riot shields up and started marching. And, like, oh, okay, I guess I'm gonna go back. And then, like, he pointed the p... |
Speaker A: Oh, my God, it's orange. |
Speaker B: Oh, God. Yeah, orange and sticky. Cause it doesn't want. They don't want you to be able to rub it off. Yeah. And so, like, I am blindly. And then I'm being pushed back by the riot shield. And then I'm blindly, like, asking for help. Like, I cannot see. Please help me not get, like, trampled. Yeah, exactly. A... |
Speaker A: Wow. |
Speaker B: And so we finally found each other. Everyone's got puffy red eyes. I call my roommate. He comes and picks us up. We go over to my apartment. We all just shower. We are coughing in the shower because the hot water is, like, pushing the pepper spray into the air. Then we go watch the news, and the news is, lik... |
Speaker A: Wow. |
Speaker B: And this is not Russia. This is the United States of America. |
Speaker A: Yeah, I mean. I mean, you like, that's crazy. And also well said. And if people are listening that don't resonate with that particular protest, imagine you're protesting something else. |
Speaker B: It doesn't matter. |
Speaker A: You protest matter. |
Speaker B: It's freedom for freedom. |
Speaker A: Like, the right to protest is a sacred right in any liberal democracy. Right. And so witnessing that firsthand and having that kind of, like, brutalized out of you, it makes you start to think differently about where you live. And this is very much how I feel with crypto, too. It's just like, how far is the ... |
Speaker B: So the encroachment on our freedoms is not incremental. Maybe it feels incremental, but then something happens, and then it's binary. And if the citizenry of a country, we're not bolstering up themselves and their position. Social layer, then it's the social layer. If the social layer wasn't prepared for thi... |
Speaker A: Need defensive technology to resist that centralizing force. You brought this protest up, though, in the context of me talking about AI risk due to surveillance and governments. |
Speaker B: I'm just saying that we don't even need AI risk to have that level of censorship. |
Speaker A: I was wondering, it's like you going to a protest as kind of a bystander, or even if you were in a protest specifically, how that would be different if there was totalitarian AI technology. Right. And so maybe it's. Now there's a picture of your face and you're, like, blacklisted from your work, from, you kn... |
Speaker B: Yeah. Like, our bank accounts get taken down. Oh, no. |
Speaker A: I've been waiting for that. Like, seriously? That's why we have a defense, right? |
Speaker B: That's why we have. Yeah, because if we can't pay our employees with, what's it called? |
Speaker A: Dollars. Yeah. |
Speaker B: We can then pay them with gusto and so we can maintain this company because they could. Maybe they took away our convenient bank accounts, but we still have our bankless bank accounts, and so we would still be able to function. |
Speaker A: I don't know how they'd expect us to pay taxes and stuff like that if they're trying to, like, excommunicate us from the existing system. |
Speaker B: But, yeah, they would. Yeah. Ultimately it would. We would not. |
Speaker A: I mean, that's why we need these backdoors. Right. But, like, is that what you were imagining when you brought this up, of how different it would be if there was a complete totalitarian government with, like, AI technology? Just. |
Speaker B: Yeah, I'm saying they can already oppress us without AI, and then with AI, it just gets so much easier. |
Speaker A: Well, that is the concern. I think that is the case for Diac and, like, in general is certainly the case for crypto. Do you. Do you think this type of a thing could unite the tribes across crypto, or is that too aspirational? Like, yeah, I do feel like. |
Speaker B: I think the crypto tribes are just, like, not relevant here. |
Speaker A: I think that there's a core set of values. Right. It's like, that only come out in crypto when you have, like, bitcoin and ethereum and all of the other layer, two communities and the government, the us government comes and attacks some fundamental, like, freedom, and then we kind of start to unite a little ... |
Speaker B: Well, it's bitcoin and crypto. |
Speaker A: Yeah, they kind of distance themselves. And I see in the Ethereum community, a lot of people distance themselves even from being a bitcoiner, because that has different, like, tribal connotations. All I'm. All I'm saying is there's not one unified set of values in a label for people in crypto, because some r... |
Speaker B: I do kind of think that a decent amount of, like, the activity that we see in the crypto world is happening because of the much more rosy environment, non authoritarian environment that we find ourselves in. |
Speaker A: Yeah, right. |
Speaker B: Like, why. Why is bonk at a billion dollars? Well, it's because we don't really need the defensive nature of crypto in this moment because we're not being attacked. |
Speaker A: We're. |
Speaker B: So we're gambling. Right. It's like the, it's. The times are good. If it's part of this cycle. |
Speaker A: Yeah. |
Speaker B: Like, as soon as we. If we ever were to, like, we kind of think we are worried about the increasing authoritarianism of nation states across the globe as a secular trend. Yeah. If that does hit a flipping point, like a critical mass, a threshold, a phase change, like I was talking about, like, it starts, it ... |
Speaker A: I totally think that's actually the reality. Like, I think that is the big threat of the next few decades. I'm hopeful we can make it out on the other side. And if we do, it'll be in part because we've got some defensive technology for sure. You know, one last thing. I. I didn't ask Vitalik, but I probably s... |
Speaker B: I think I can predict his answer. What? Remember when I asked him back in Tel Aviv in 2019, Vitalik, do you think Eth could be money? The crypto community, parts of the Ethereum community, say Eth is money. What do you think? And he goes, well, Eth can be money if the Ethereum community wants it to be money.... |
Speaker A: Well, shit, man, did we just create a whole monetary system for them? And they're going to use it to. |
Speaker B: Enslave us now, David, first they will pump our bags. |
Speaker A: Well, what a glorious end it will be. Eat the all time highs, and then we become their pets. And by the way, that's the most optimistic outcome, is pets. That's still the one I'm hoping for. |
Speaker B: Pets. |
Speaker A: Pets. |
Speaker B: Pets are Mars. |
Speaker A: Yeah, pets are Mars. All right, guys, thanks for hanging with us. This has been the debrief peace. |
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 5