I'm fascinated by the rise of frictionmaxxing as a response to a frictionless life. We engineer away inconvenience, only to discover that some of the friction we removed was part of what made life feel alive in the first place

-EAH

PSA that we are all stewards of what tweets get seen more. when ur homie tweets something that you want people to see, even if you have nothing to say, drop a heart emoji or whatever in the replies so the algo knows it should pay attention

Maybe as society gets more atomized, the mythological "scientifically proven selfish person" is something everyone fears they are becoming, so they project their fear onto petty enemies and exes

Elizabeth Holmes pursues honesty through pathological lying, total power over her own narrative by manipulating men by letting them rob her of her own voice. in the end, she is content to have “won” on her terms; only one person in the entire film can see that she has still lost.

BOTH of my theories about you can see everything I feel confident in saying I was right about and I desperately need to talk about them SPOILERTOWN COMMENTS BELOW DON'T READ WITHOUT SEEING IT *** ethics in journalism is a huge thing here obviously but I think the fact that they showed that it happened is important. the other thing is that they included the bit at the end when Amanda asked Nathan *that* question. if they hadn't included it and we were left thinking "hey they should have addressed that somehow" I think it would have looked really bad. and I think it's really bad A24 agreed what they agreed to. but the fact that they showed what they agreed to made it transparent, so ???? idk I think that was the right thing to do with the decision they made. I don't like the concept of this kind of thing but if they had tried to keep that hushed, it would have been so scummy. visibly including it was the right move. my two theories were: this doc is going to portray her as innocent somehow, which I think they sortof achieved, or at least tried to introduce a large doubt about her guilt. personally I think this was all clearly strategized from her and her husband's end. yes the man is highly controlling and manipulative, but not for one second do I believe she didn't know all the workings about finances, and not for one second do I buy "oh her brain just works differently." my other theory is that nathan falls in love with her or at least develops feelings for her. I don't know if he'd say that himself, but by the end of it it was clear that he did indeed care about her in a way that I suspect yes, he was trying to protect her just a little bit somehow. wild wild doc. wish I could watch all three hours of it for the first time over right now. unbelievable shit. I'd let this man hold a loaded gun to my head and trust him not to pull the trigger

one way to know if you’re in anxious rumination or not: phrase your core concern as a simple question e.g. “what if I’m not good enough to get what I want?” then, take a good hard look at that question and ask a follow-up: “is this an answerable question?” if the subject of your rumination is “am I working hard enough to get the results I want”, that’s an answerable question, with a testable hypothesis - see if more effort produces more results if the rumination is more “will I ever be good enough”, that’s an unanswerable question. you could circle that one forever (and many people do!) in the latter case, I’m not saying “so just snap out of it”. rather, recognize that you’re in a fear state, and what your mind is trying to access is calm, via a sense of safety. that anxious voice in your head thinks you need to answer that unanswerable question in order to feel safe but you don’t. you can feel safe in the uncertainty. your job then is to get yourself there… which means allowing yourself to let go of the constant questioning

interpretability might be the most important scientific problem in the world right now, as I don't think we can solve alignment if we don't know what we're building. I think I have good news about it. I co-authored early work in mechanistic interpretability at OpenAI and came away pessimistic, because neural networks appeared to fold into arbitrary tangled knots. years later, I started openai's first large-scale automated interpretability project, finding about 2% of neurons legible with the primitive tools we had with modern agentic tools and a much closer look, the picture looks totally different. the vast majority in models up to trillions of parameters are legible, and their circuits beautiful. many famous examples of tangled neurons turned out to be misunderstood. The roadblocks I expected mostly aren't there. I now think ambitious interpretability will be solved by the time we need it most, and possibly quite soon, as automated scientists keep improving. it may be a bitter lesson for interpretability: the simple thing, at absurd scale, works already-clean.goodfire.com/

I think the best marketing training is being chronically online and culturally curious for years. Just look at kids on tiktok effortlessly going viral. That instinct is hard to teach and impossible to optimise into

If there was a stock market for words, I'd be buying: soul, jhana, theory of mind, GPS brain, dead internet, oblomovitis, aliveness, bucket theory of education, chesterton's fence, and sprezzatura.

asked chat to create a diagram that answers to this based on my previous notes + how i'd look at them. one caveat here is that non-reactivity is more lack of mental tension as attachment/aversion, not fully getting of your patterns that match that type of unhelpful approach