4 ms·

Notice, for the first few minutes of that video, it shows a mounting degree of credibility on the part of Nueralink as PhDs with expertise on relevant topics ar

Notice, for the first few minutes of that video, it shows a mounting degree of credibility on the part of Nueralink as PhDs with expertise on relevant topics are noted, but then quite abruptly the tone shifts and it plays a comedy sketch [1]. Why? Apply common sense and skepticism to that question and you will be enlightened. I'll give you a hint: common sense does not indicate, like the YouTube channel implies, that the richest person in the world gets there by providing absolutely no value to the rooms he enters. In order to have that implication a resort to a different rhetorical technique than that of reason is necessary. The creator of the video understood this and employed such a technique. The video tries to argue that Elon Musk is trying to steal credit for founding the company [2]. He doesn't actually quote Elon Musk when he accuses him of stealing credit. Why does he circle text on Wikipedia rather than quote Elon Musk? If you go to the Wikipedia article and check the citations for that claim you will discover Elon Musk does not state the thing which the liar in the video states that he claims. Why does he lie about what Elon Musk actually said? Apply common sense and skepticism to that question and you will be enlightened. I'll give you a hint: he is working backward from a narrative, not forward from the facts. Alternatively, want to do a long bet for $10k that in 10 years Musk will still be a millionaire despite the contents of the video you linked? Void of bet in the event that some other cause leads to misfortune. [1]: https://youtu.be/BvmA_gQ-95c?t=155 https://youtu.be/BvmA_gQ-95c?t=155 [2]: https://youtu.be/BvmA_gQ-95c?t=185 https://youtu.be/BvmA_gQ-95c?t=185

sschueller 6y ago
The video may be a bit off but doesn't change who Musk [1] is. Arrogantly dictating his way around like a child will eventually result in push back. Maybe not in the US or China but the Germans don't play the same game. [2] [1] https://elonmusk.today/ https://elonmusk.today/ [2] https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/elon-musk-tesla-gruenheide-das-heuchlerische-gerede-des-tesla-chefs-a-4d9d9b7e-81c6-424c-9311-b9a6b6ecd294?sara_ecid=soci_upd_wbMbjhOSvViISjc8RPU89NcCvtlFcJ https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/elon-musk-tesla-gruenheide...
- JoshCole 6y ago
  That new link is pretty pathetic as a justification for derision. I'll take one and only example because if I did as many as I could do I would come across as an apologist when really your sources are just absolute garbage. They are full of straw men and fallacies. Don't get me wrong - you can point to one that is reasonable. It's just that as a wall of argument that is full of garbage is a gish gallop. It's a technique of rhetoric not reason. So I'm not going to treat your sources as something I should be reasonable with, since they are unworthy of the effort. > 2,291 days since Elon Musk tweeted tat Tesla was developing a charger that automatically connects to cars. (12/31/2014) > "We are actually working on a charger that automatically moves out from the wall & connects like a solid metal snake. For realz." > https://elonmusk.today/#snake-charger https://elonmusk.today/#snake-charger Here is the metal snake charger it claims doesn't exist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWXIZMtxB6Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWXIZMtxB6Q
  - sschueller 6y ago
    The site obviously refers to people actually being able to use such a thing not a prototype in a "lab". I hope you don't own any Tesla shares because that will be a rude awakening in a not to distant future.
    - JoshCole 6y ago
      You aren't a prophet schueller. You don't know what will happen in the future. Neither do I. What you can do is reason as effectively as possible with the highest quality information you can obtain. The information source that you are using isn't high quality. This is obvious, but I'll explain why in more detail. First off, you are right. Obviously the site intends the meaning that you gave. Making up a different claim other than the one he said is stupid to do. With just the claim that 2 = 1 you can prove that you are the pope in two steps. The set of you and the pope is two people. 2 = 1, therefore the set of you and the pope is actually one people. Therefore you are the pope. This childish game of choosing what you believe rather than believing what is true is pointless. Everything is provable, so the entire worldview is justifiable and anyone who can make you angry at something has control of your opinion and you can prove whatever you set out to prove. For that reason, it is important to understand reality as it is rather than reality as you think it is. You don't get to make up whatever meaning you like for words if you want to be rational. If you are going to assume a meaning, it is wise to choose the most charitable possible reading, because otherwise you aren't grounded in evidence. This isn't just the principal of loving your neighbor as yourself - though it is that too. It goes deeper in a mathematical sense. If there are two readings, one of which is supported by evidence, but the other isn't, but you choose to read the meaning which isn't supported by the evidence than you are making a calculated decision to use the reading which has less evidence supporting it. Your beliefs aren't justified by evidence. So they aren't rooted in a wellspring of truth. The site does choose to be ungrounded from the truth. It doesn't choose the most charitable reading of his statement. It restates instead something he didn't say. Something which has less evidence backing it than another reading of what he said which was absolutely true with strong evidence backing the interpretation. We know that there is a more charitable reading, because he claimed they were working on something and that thing which they claimed to have worked on is shown to exist. Working on something doesn't imply that it becomes massively adopted. If it did, that would imply that most people in all of reality have never worked a day in their life. Someone who spent all of their life in hard labor, according to your definition for what work is, would not have worked even once - they, after all, didn't get mass adoption of whatever it was they worked on. So the twisting of the words isn't right. It requires distortion. It requires reaching. It isn't as supported by the evidence. It is wrong. Yet the site chose to use that wrong interpretation. It gave you a source of information about Elon Musk, but it gave you one which wasn't rooted in the evidence. It wasn't written for your reason, but for your emotion. It is intended to provoke emotion, which is why it reads like it does. It isn't intended to be read rationally, because wisdom despises lies. In forming your opinions atop this information source, you're not thinking based on the evidence, but based on emotion. It doesn't matter how clever you are - and I'm sure you're clever. The information you're using is faulty. It may lead you to correct conclusions despite itself, but it doesn't have a strong logical justification for doing so. Therefore, the information source is quite obviously one you should disavow and avoid if your goal is to make good and profitable decisions. Keep in mind, this doesn't mean you are wrong. You could be right - it just won't be because of the information source you used, which is quit soundly refuted.
throwawayay02 6y ago
Of course Musk will still be a millionaire at least, but I'd take that $10k best that we won't have fully autonomous driving or any consumer brain integration in 10 years with mass adoption.
- JoshCole 6y ago
  It is obvious that he isn't going to crash and burn hard - to you. So forcing you to reconcile with the inability to take a bet that is in accordance with your stated predictions has no value - it doesn't force you to confront the fact that you don't believe what you are saying with enough conviction to act on it and it doesn't force the audience to recognize it either. Asking me to take a bet that doesn't match with my stated predictions isn't as reasonable. Why should I bet on something that I never claimed would happen? That said - I'm already invested in long positions in various AI & robotics companies. You can bet against my actual beliefs by taking positions which would benefit you if those companies aren't the future.

sschueller 6y ago

The video may be a bit off but doesn't change who Musk [1] is. Arrogantly dictating his way around like a child will eventually result in push back. Maybe not in the US or China but the Germans don't play the same game. [2] [1] https://elonmusk.today/ https://elonmusk.today/ [2] https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/elon-musk-tesla-gruenheide-das-heuchlerische-gerede-des-tesla-chefs-a-4d9d9b7e-81c6-424c-9311-b9a6b6ecd294?sara_ecid=soci_upd_wbMbjhOSvViISjc8RPU89NcCvtlFcJ https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/elon-musk-tesla-gruenheide...

JoshCole 6y ago
That new link is pretty pathetic as a justification for derision. I'll take one and only example because if I did as many as I could do I would come across as an apologist when really your sources are just absolute garbage. They are full of straw men and fallacies. Don't get me wrong - you can point to one that is reasonable. It's just that as a wall of argument that is full of garbage is a gish gallop. It's a technique of rhetoric not reason. So I'm not going to treat your sources as something I should be reasonable with, since they are unworthy of the effort. > 2,291 days since Elon Musk tweeted tat Tesla was developing a charger that automatically connects to cars. (12/31/2014) > "We are actually working on a charger that automatically moves out from the wall & connects like a solid metal snake. For realz." > https://elonmusk.today/#snake-charger https://elonmusk.today/#snake-charger Here is the metal snake charger it claims doesn't exist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWXIZMtxB6Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWXIZMtxB6Q
- sschueller 6y ago
  The site obviously refers to people actually being able to use such a thing not a prototype in a "lab". I hope you don't own any Tesla shares because that will be a rude awakening in a not to distant future.
  - JoshCole 6y ago
    You aren't a prophet schueller. You don't know what will happen in the future. Neither do I. What you can do is reason as effectively as possible with the highest quality information you can obtain. The information source that you are using isn't high quality. This is obvious, but I'll explain why in more detail. First off, you are right. Obviously the site intends the meaning that you gave. Making up a different claim other than the one he said is stupid to do. With just the claim that 2 = 1 you can prove that you are the pope in two steps. The set of you and the pope is two people. 2 = 1, therefore the set of you and the pope is actually one people. Therefore you are the pope. This childish game of choosing what you believe rather than believing what is true is pointless. Everything is provable, so the entire worldview is justifiable and anyone who can make you angry at something has control of your opinion and you can prove whatever you set out to prove. For that reason, it is important to understand reality as it is rather than reality as you think it is. You don't get to make up whatever meaning you like for words if you want to be rational. If you are going to assume a meaning, it is wise to choose the most charitable possible reading, because otherwise you aren't grounded in evidence. This isn't just the principal of loving your neighbor as yourself - though it is that too. It goes deeper in a mathematical sense. If there are two readings, one of which is supported by evidence, but the other isn't, but you choose to read the meaning which isn't supported by the evidence than you are making a calculated decision to use the reading which has less evidence supporting it. Your beliefs aren't justified by evidence. So they aren't rooted in a wellspring of truth. The site does choose to be ungrounded from the truth. It doesn't choose the most charitable reading of his statement. It restates instead something he didn't say. Something which has less evidence backing it than another reading of what he said which was absolutely true with strong evidence backing the interpretation. We know that there is a more charitable reading, because he claimed they were working on something and that thing which they claimed to have worked on is shown to exist. Working on something doesn't imply that it becomes massively adopted. If it did, that would imply that most people in all of reality have never worked a day in their life. Someone who spent all of their life in hard labor, according to your definition for what work is, would not have worked even once - they, after all, didn't get mass adoption of whatever it was they worked on. So the twisting of the words isn't right. It requires distortion. It requires reaching. It isn't as supported by the evidence. It is wrong. Yet the site chose to use that wrong interpretation. It gave you a source of information about Elon Musk, but it gave you one which wasn't rooted in the evidence. It wasn't written for your reason, but for your emotion. It is intended to provoke emotion, which is why it reads like it does. It isn't intended to be read rationally, because wisdom despises lies. In forming your opinions atop this information source, you're not thinking based on the evidence, but based on emotion. It doesn't matter how clever you are - and I'm sure you're clever. The information you're using is faulty. It may lead you to correct conclusions despite itself, but it doesn't have a strong logical justification for doing so. Therefore, the information source is quite obviously one you should disavow and avoid if your goal is to make good and profitable decisions. Keep in mind, this doesn't mean you are wrong. You could be right - it just won't be because of the information source you used, which is quit soundly refuted.

throwawayay02 6y ago

Of course Musk will still be a millionaire at least, but I'd take that $10k best that we won't have fully autonomous driving or any consumer brain integration in 10 years with mass adoption.

JoshCole 6y ago
It is obvious that he isn't going to crash and burn hard - to you. So forcing you to reconcile with the inability to take a bet that is in accordance with your stated predictions has no value - it doesn't force you to confront the fact that you don't believe what you are saying with enough conviction to act on it and it doesn't force the audience to recognize it either. Asking me to take a bet that doesn't match with my stated predictions isn't as reasonable. Why should I bet on something that I never claimed would happen? That said - I'm already invested in long positions in various AI & robotics companies. You can bet against my actual beliefs by taking positions which would benefit you if those companies aren't the future.