Reliable sources report that if you subscribe to FoxNation for a mere $5.99 a month, you will receive access to a wide variety of top-notch intellectual content (with some eagles, flags, etc), including—my new hour-long interview with Tucker Carlson…
Whenever I hear Curtis talking about these oligarchic bureaucracies, It always reminds me of the paperclip maximizer problem. Isn't a bureaucracy just an AI that runs on groupthink and paperwork? The problem isn't so much that they exist, but that they can never be turned off once the task has been accomplished because the nature of oligarchic power structures simply doesn't have that functionality built in. Once you open up such a program (bureaucracy) in the oligarchic run-time environment, the only way to kill that task is to wait until it causes the entire system to crash. Essentially his whole message is don't attempt to run bureaucracies outside of the monarchic operating system.
It's actually the same for many, many complex systems. I.e. given let's say a limited resource called X and being able to put it towards the values A and B will inevitably result in optimizing towards just one of the values because eventually the payoff of optimizing for one value but better will exceed the payoff of optimizing for both. This is the case even with hundreds or thousands of values - it just takes longer.
Once only one value remains we're left with a positive feedback loop - and the natural outcome of any positive feedback loop is a (usually terminal) crisis.
Absolutely agree. You also get the typical AI problem where it starts solving problems in completely bizarre and counter-intuitive ways.
The FBI is an excellent example. This "AI" is tasked with stopping domestic terrorism and other various crimes. Such a task is absurdly hard and extremely resource intensive. Solution? Find fertile soil, farm your own criminals, and then "harvest" the crop right before it comes to fruition. It is the most elegant and resource efficient solution to make arrest line metric go up. Absurd but logical solution, Yes. Actually stopping crime, of course not. Making success metric needed for additional funding go up, fuck yes.
Can we ever turn this AI process off? No, because the AI will intervene in the decision making process to make sure it isn't turned off (JFK?). Since turning off the AI will prevent it from its ultimate goal of making arrest line metric go up. Seems the only reason the AI hasn't arrested every citizen already is that it runs on faulty human hardware and paperwork that is slow to self-optimize.
You melted his brain, and mine. I can't decide what I'm currently enjoying more after having found you via Tucker: your content or your commenters. "Shit-posting philosophers" is a glorious category that I didn't know existed. I want to find this in real life. Okay bye, I'm re-entering my catch-up reading wormhole.
Honestly though, really impressed with Tucker in that interview, as an interviewer. Out of an hour and 15, Tucker maybe made 4 statements, he just let Curtis ramble off 10-20 minute monologues at a time to complete his whole thoughts, which are *very* foreign to our modern era and take a while to unpack. That takes talent as an interviewer, not interrupting, not steering, not self-inserting. Tucker just strikes me as a really standup guy. I used to be a lib who hated him from the other side, but since seeing interviews where Tucker is the guest, he is surprisingly normal and well-meaning, not the brightest crayon in the box, but doesn't pretend to be either. I like him a lot now.
I was mesmerized and loved it. My wife who is unfamiliar with Curtis' work was initially quite interested but became frustrated when he took so long to answer the question and get to the point and fell asleep. When she woke up, I explained that this meandering style was a thing and something to be savored and the detours really did provide context and depth and support the eventual main point. I had to give two minute summaries of the main points at the end which I happily did.
Seriously, congrats dude. You are one of my biggest formative influences since around 2013, just as you went dark. It's awesome to see you back and spreading ideas that are important to me because of you.
Wait a min did tucker apply to be yarvins new wife
Look what they did to my boy
https://twitter.com/unskilledlaborz/status/1435712769165119490?s=21
They would make beautiful babies.
Subbed but I can’t find it. Fuck I’ve been subbed to fox for 2 min and I’m already having boomer tech issues
It's titled "American Degradation" and listed as the most recent episode of "Tucker Carlson Today", for anyone still looking.
Feature not a bug.
You're not alone. Had the exact same thoughts and had to rely on someone sending a link.
https://nation.foxnews.com/watch/45379023a8ea64009329e6c6465f3e9e/
Whenever I hear Curtis talking about these oligarchic bureaucracies, It always reminds me of the paperclip maximizer problem. Isn't a bureaucracy just an AI that runs on groupthink and paperwork? The problem isn't so much that they exist, but that they can never be turned off once the task has been accomplished because the nature of oligarchic power structures simply doesn't have that functionality built in. Once you open up such a program (bureaucracy) in the oligarchic run-time environment, the only way to kill that task is to wait until it causes the entire system to crash. Essentially his whole message is don't attempt to run bureaucracies outside of the monarchic operating system.
It's actually the same for many, many complex systems. I.e. given let's say a limited resource called X and being able to put it towards the values A and B will inevitably result in optimizing towards just one of the values because eventually the payoff of optimizing for one value but better will exceed the payoff of optimizing for both. This is the case even with hundreds or thousands of values - it just takes longer.
Once only one value remains we're left with a positive feedback loop - and the natural outcome of any positive feedback loop is a (usually terminal) crisis.
Absolutely agree. You also get the typical AI problem where it starts solving problems in completely bizarre and counter-intuitive ways.
The FBI is an excellent example. This "AI" is tasked with stopping domestic terrorism and other various crimes. Such a task is absurdly hard and extremely resource intensive. Solution? Find fertile soil, farm your own criminals, and then "harvest" the crop right before it comes to fruition. It is the most elegant and resource efficient solution to make arrest line metric go up. Absurd but logical solution, Yes. Actually stopping crime, of course not. Making success metric needed for additional funding go up, fuck yes.
Can we ever turn this AI process off? No, because the AI will intervene in the decision making process to make sure it isn't turned off (JFK?). Since turning off the AI will prevent it from its ultimate goal of making arrest line metric go up. Seems the only reason the AI hasn't arrested every citizen already is that it runs on faulty human hardware and paperwork that is slow to self-optimize.
Well…in fairness if the C word were applied there would be a CEO, called a President who would run the Executive Branch.
You melted his brain, and mine. I can't decide what I'm currently enjoying more after having found you via Tucker: your content or your commenters. "Shit-posting philosophers" is a glorious category that I didn't know existed. I want to find this in real life. Okay bye, I'm re-entering my catch-up reading wormhole.
“You’re giving me that famous Tucker look— is that because you’re confused?”
Perhaps my favorite line from the interview. CY got some good zingers across, real got some of his goofy sense of humor out there.
Hahah dude I cracked up when he called out "The Incredulous Tucker Look," haha
Honestly though, really impressed with Tucker in that interview, as an interviewer. Out of an hour and 15, Tucker maybe made 4 statements, he just let Curtis ramble off 10-20 minute monologues at a time to complete his whole thoughts, which are *very* foreign to our modern era and take a while to unpack. That takes talent as an interviewer, not interrupting, not steering, not self-inserting. Tucker just strikes me as a really standup guy. I used to be a lib who hated him from the other side, but since seeing interviews where Tucker is the guest, he is surprisingly normal and well-meaning, not the brightest crayon in the box, but doesn't pretend to be either. I like him a lot now.
Tucker isn’t even a great interviewer he often outshines the guest gets them off track. A testament to Curtis’s presentation and ideas.
The first thing that crossed my mind yesterday when I heard about this interview was, now Gray Mirror will be mobbed by Tucker's audience
it already is
'Unless there has been some kind of Internet space warp and my words are being carried live on Fox News' - A Formalist Manifesto, 2007
BRUH
Yes, I first heard of Curtis Yarvin on Tucker Carlson Today on the FoxNation this week! Now I'm a paid subscriber for Gray Mirror!
Ditto. Incredible interview.
So did you both figure out you’re communists yet?
Trust me it ain’t just Uncle Yarv around here. You will read some serious shit, especially if you dig around into Unqualified Reservations too.
Thanks for recommendation. Just started UR. 👍
Try the Gentle Introduction and the Formalist Manifesto. My personal favorite, for some serious religious mindfucking, is How Dawkins Got Pwned.
We‘ll win when Fox News starts pushing for a monarchy
That will be the day
“We”
A 3-minute clip for those in disbelief:
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6271592770001#sp=show-clips
Thanks! I really thought Curtis has some messianic vision from a recent circling session until you posted this.
Is it truly time for Thomas Carlyle to go mainstream again.
Froude Society Worldwide
Tonight on Fox, the Carlyle hour
For those who can't find it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsGbRNmu4NQ
I was mesmerized and loved it. My wife who is unfamiliar with Curtis' work was initially quite interested but became frustrated when he took so long to answer the question and get to the point and fell asleep. When she woke up, I explained that this meandering style was a thing and something to be savored and the detours really did provide context and depth and support the eventual main point. I had to give two minute summaries of the main points at the end which I happily did.
Seriously, congrats dude. You are one of my biggest formative influences since around 2013, just as you went dark. It's awesome to see you back and spreading ideas that are important to me because of you.
Fox News can thank Mr. Yarvin for the 99 cent intro month they got from me.
Meanwhile it has been funny to watch "a free market would support xyz" libertarians all hunting for a pirated version.
That's just the thing - the fair market price of an interview is $0.
Those would be Agorists.
The king called the jester over. "Jester, tell me a joke about ME!" "Sire, the king may never be a subject...of my jokes."
I just imagine Jeff Bezos watching these and be like.. I can do it
dude, WHAT?!?