nherit office. They are appointed through a chain that begins with the people. So every part of the new government either comes directly from the people or comes from officials who were chosen by the people. For that reason, the Constitution is republican in its foundation. There is even more proof of this. The Constitution guarantees that every state will have a **republican form of government**. It also forbids titles of nobility. These are strong signs that the proposed system is meant to reject monarchy and aristocracy. But another question remains: **Is the new government federal or national?** This is important because critics say the Constitution destroys the states and creates one complete national government. To judge that claim fairly, we need to look at the Constitution from several angles. First, consider **how the Constitution is established**. Is it based on the people as one single nation, or on the people as citizens of separate states? The answer is that it is based on the states. The Constitution is not being adopted by one national majority voting all at once. Instead, it is being adopted by conventions in each state. Each state acts for itself and decides for itself. In that sense, the Constitution is **federal**, not national. Next, consider **where the ordinary powers of the government come from**. The House of Representatives gets its power from the people of America, counted by population. In that respect, it is **national**. The Senate gets its power from the states as political societies, and each state has equal representation there. In that respect, it is **federal**. The President is chosen through a mixed method. Electors are appointed state by state, but the number of electors is based partly on population and partly on state equality through Senate seats. So the presidency comes from a **mixture of national and federal principles**. So when we look at the sources of government power, we do not find a system that is purely one thing or the other. It is partly national and partly federal. Now consider **how the government operates**. On whom does it act? A purely federal government would act mainly on the states as states. But the proposed Constitution acts directly on **individual citizens**. Federal laws apply to people, not just to state governments. Courts judge individuals, taxes can be collected from individuals, and laws can be enforced against individuals. In this sense, the government is **national**, because it operates directly on the people. Now consider **how much power the government has**. If the general government had unlimited authority over all matters, it would be fully national. But that is not what the Constitution creates. The federal government receives only certain listed powers: matters such as war, peace, foreign affairs, commerce, and other national concerns. The states keep a broad range of powers over ordinary life and internal matters. Because the powers of the general government are **limited and defined**, while the states keep a large share of power, the system is **federal** in this respect. Finally, consider **how the Constitution can be amended**. If amendments could be made by a simple majority of all Americans acting as one nation, that would be national. If amendments required the unanimous consent of all the states, that would be completely federal, like the old Articles of Confederation. But the Constitution uses a middle method: amendments need approval from a large portion of the states, not all of them, and not just a national majority of individuals. So the amendment process is **neither wholly national nor wholly federal**. It is a blend of both. When we put all this together, the answer becomes clear: The proposed Constitution is **not purely national**, because the states still matter greatly in its foundation, structure, powers, and amendment process. But it is also **not purely federal**, because it acts directly on individuals and includes institutions based on the people as a whole. So what is it? It is a **compound republic**—a system that combines both federal and national features. This is one of the great advantages of the Constitution. It allows the country to have enough unity to deal with national problems, while still preserving the states as important political communities. In America, the people will therefore be represented in **two ways**: through the national government and through their state governments. Each government will have its own powers and responsibilities. This division of power helps protect liberty, because no single authority holds all power. So the Constitution should not be attacked for failing to fit neatly into one simple category. Its strength comes from the fact that it combines different principles in a practical way. To sum it up: - The Constitution is **republican** because all its power comes directly or indirectly from the people. - It is **federal** in some ways, especially in its foundation and the limited nature of federal power. - It is **national** in other ways, especially in how it acts directly on individuals. - Overall, it is a **mixed system**, designed to take the benefits of both. That is why the Constitution is not a betrayal of republican government. It is a carefully designed form of republican government suited to the special situation of the United States. --- If you want, I can also give you: 1. a **much shorter summary**, 2. a **line-by-line modern translation**, or 3. a **high school / middle school version**. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 40 rewritten in simpler, modern English**. Ill keep the main argument and meaning, but make the language much easier to follow. --- # Federalist No. 40 — Simplified Rewrite One of the main objections to the Constitutional Convention is this: people say the delegates had no right to create an entirely new Constitution. They were only supposed to revise the Articles of Confederation, not replace them. This criticism sounds strong at first, so it deserves a careful answer. To understand whether the Convention acted properly, we should look at the authority the delegates were actually given. We should ask: what were they sent to do, and what was the real purpose of their meeting? The Convention did not appear out of nowhere. Before it met, the country had already seen many serious problems under the Articles of Confederation. The national government was weak. It could not properly collect money, enforce laws, regulate trade, or make the states work together. The Union was in danger. The delegates were sent to find a solution to these problems. Yes, some instructions used the words “revise the Articles of Confederation.” But the goal was much larger than simply editing old language. The goal was to make the federal government strong enough to preserve the Union. If the existing system was clearly broken, and small changes would not fix it, then the Convention had to consider more serious changes. It would have made little sense to limit them to superficial repairs when the whole structure was failing. In judging the Convention, we should focus less on narrow wording and more on the purpose behind the delegates’ mission. They were appointed to save the Union and create a government capable of doing its job. If that required major changes, then major changes were appropriate. Also, the states themselves used language that was often broad, not narrow. In many cases, they authorized their delegates not just to make small corrections, but to propose whatever changes were necessary to make the government adequate to the needs of the nation. That kind of authority is not confined to minor amendments. Congress also supported the Convention for the purpose of improving the federal system so that it could preserve the Union. Again, the true object was effectiveness, not mere form. Now let us imagine the Convention had followed the strictest possible reading of its instructions. Suppose it had made only a few adjustments to the Articles while leaving their weak foundation untouched. Would that have served the country? No. It would have ignored the crisis and failed to solve the real problem. The Articles of Confederation were not just slightly defective. They had shown themselves unable to govern a growing nation. The states often ignored national obligations. Public credit was weak. Foreign nations doubted our seriousness. Trade was disordered. Internal stability was threatened. The government lacked the power necessary to secure the common good. In that situation, the Convention had a duty to recommend a system that could actually work. It is also important to remember that the Convention did not force the new Constitution on anyone. The delegates only proposed it. They did not claim the power to put it into effect by themselves. Instead, they submitted it to the people and the states for approval. This is a very important point. Even if someone believes the Convention went beyond its original instructions, the proposed Constitution still depends on the people’s consent. The ultimate authority in a republic is not the delegates, not Congress, and not even the state legislatures as such. It is the people themselves. Because the Constitution was offered to the people for ratification, its legitimacy comes from that approval. The Convention did not seize power. It recommended a plan and left the final decision where it properly belongs: with the people. So the real question should not be whether the Convention stayed within the narrowest technical reading of every instruction. The real question should be whether the Constitution is a good plan for the country, and whether the people want to adopt it. If the old government was inadequate, and if the Convention proposed a better one, then the proposal deserves to be judged on its merits, not dismissed because of a procedural objection. In truth, objections of this kind often rely more on form than substance. They assume that preserving exact legal wording matters more than preserving the nation itself. But government exists for practical ends — security, order, justice, and the public welfare. When the old system cannot achieve those ends, reform must be allowed to reach deep enough to succeed. The Convention’s work was therefore reasonable. It responded to a national emergency. It sought not to destroy the Union, but to save it. And it placed the final judgment in the hands of the American people. That is the strongest possible answer to the objection. The Convention may have proposed more than some critics expected. But it did so because the situation required it. And since the Constitution would have no force unless accepted by the people, there is no danger in allowing the people to consider and decide on the plan for themselves. In the end, the Convention should not be condemned for offering an effective remedy to a failing system. If the Constitution is wise, it should be adopted. If it is unwise, it should be rejected. But it should be judged fairly, based on its usefulness and its principles — not attacked merely because it went beyond patching up a government that was already collapsing. --- ## Very short summary of Federalist No. 40 Madison argues that the Constitutional Convention was justified in proposing a new Constitution, even though it was originally called to revise the Articles of Confederation. His main point is that the Articles were too weak to fix with small changes, and the Convention’s true purpose was to save the Union. Also, the Convention only proposed the Constitution — it did not impose it. Since the people would decide whether to ratify it, the plan was legitimate. --- If you want, I can also do either of these: 1. **an even simpler middle-school version**, or 2. **a paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite of Federalist No. 40**. Sure — here’s **Federalist No. 41 rewritten in simpler modern English**. I’m **keeping Madison’s main ideas**, but I’m **not doing a strict line-by-line translation**. Instead, this is a **clearer plain-English version** of the argument. --- # Federalist No. 41 in Simpler Words When we judge the Constitution, we should think about two main questions: 1. **How much power does it give the federal government?** 2. **How is that government organized?** At this point, I’m talking about the **powers** it gives. These powers can be grouped into a few categories: - powers to protect the country from foreign enemies, - powers to deal with other nations, - powers to manage relations among the states, - powers over certain general national matters, - limits placed on the states, - and powers needed to make the whole government work properly. The first group of powers is about **national defense**, and this is one of the most important jobs of any government. A nation must be able to protect itself from attack. Because of that, the Constitution gives the federal government powers such as: - raising armies, - maintaining a navy, - directing military forces, - and organizing and calling up the militia when needed. Some critics say the Constitution gives Congress **unlimited power** because it allows Congress to tax and spend for the **“common defense and general welfare.”** They argue that those words mean Congress can do almost anything it wants. But that interpretation does not make sense. Those words are followed by a list of **specific powers**. The broad phrase is only an introduction to the list. It does **not** mean Congress can do whatever it wants. If the words “general welfare” already gave Congress unlimited authority, then there would have been **no reason** to list any specific powers afterward. The list would be pointless. So the more reasonable reading is this: Congress may tax and spend in order to carry out the powers that the Constitution then goes on to name. The phrase does **not** create an unlimited national government. In other words, critics are taking a few words out of context and pretending they mean much more than they really do. At the same time, we should not go too far in the other direction and deny the federal government powers it truly needs. The safety of the nation depends on having a government strong enough to defend it. The problem with foreign danger is that it is impossible to predict exactly what form it will take. No one can say ahead of time: - who might threaten us, - when that threat might come, - how serious it will be, - or what kind of military response will be needed. Because the dangers are uncertain, the government must have powers broad enough to respond to many different situations. That is why the Constitution allows the federal government to raise armies and maintain a navy. A country cannot wait until it is already under attack before getting ready to defend itself. Preparation is part of defense. The same is true of the militia. The Union must be able to call forth the militia to: - enforce the laws, - put down rebellions, - and repel invasions. And if the militia is going to be useful, someone must have the power to organize it, arm it, and train it. Some people are so suspicious of government that they oppose almost every power given to it. But that kind of fear can go too far. A free people should always be watchful and cautious about political power. Still, they should not be so jealous of power that they refuse to give their government the tools needed to protect the nation. The real question is not whether power can be abused — of course it can. The real question is whether a government can do its job **without** the necessary powers. A government responsible for national safety must be able to act effectively. So the Constitution does **not** secretly give Congress unlimited power through the words “general welfare.” Instead, it gives the federal government the normal and necessary powers that any nation needs in order to survive, defend itself, and preserve peace. That is Madison’s main point: **the federal government should be limited, but it must still be strong enough to handle national dangers.** --- ## Very short summary **Federalist No. 41 argues that:** - the Constitution does **not** give Congress unlimited power through the phrase **“general welfare,”** - that phrase must be read together with the **specific powers listed afterward,** - and the federal government must have enough military and defense power to protect the country from foreign threats, invasions, and rebellions. --- If you want, I can also do one of these: 1. a **line-by-line simpler rewrite**, 2. a **1-paragraph summary**, or 3. a **high school reading level version**. Sure — here’s **Federalist No. 42 in simpler, modern language**. This is a **plain-English paraphrase**, not a line-by-line translation. I’ve also used modern wording in places, especially when referring to slavery. Federalist No. 42 was written by James Madison and published on January 22, 1788. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp)) ## Federalist No. 42, rewritten in simpler words **To the people of New York:** The next group of powers given to the national government deals with how the United States interacts with other countries. These powers include making treaties, sending and receiving diplomats and consuls, punishing piracy and crimes at sea, punishing violations of international law, and regulating trade with foreign nations. The Constitution also gives Congress the power, after 1808, to stop the importation of enslaved people, and before then to place a tax on that trade. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp)) These powers clearly belong to the national government. If the United States is going to act like one nation in any area, it must act like one nation when dealing with foreign countries. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp)) The power to make treaties and deal with foreign representatives already existed in some form under the Articles of Confederation, but the old system was incomplete and awkward. The Constitution improves it by being more clear and more practical. It does not just mention ambassadors; it also clearly allows the United States to send and receive other kinds of diplomats and consuls. That matters because countries do not always use only the highest-level representatives. A government should have the authority it actually needs, not just authority described in narrow or outdated terms. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp)) Even small gaps in a constitution can become serious problems. If powers are left vague, officials may either be unable to do what is necessary or may start stretching their authority beyond proper limits. One advantage of the new Constitution is that it fills in these gaps and makes the rules more exact. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp)) The national government should also have the power to define and punish piracy, crimes committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations. Under the old system, there was not enough clarity or authority in this area. That was dangerous, because one careless state could create trouble for the entire union in its relations with foreign powers. The country needs one common rule for these matters, not thirteen different ones. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp)) The federal government must also control foreign commerce. Madison says he wishes the Constitution had allowed the importation of enslaved people to be banned immediately rather than waiting until 1808. Still, he argues that even delaying it is better than leaving the traffic protected forever, because at least the Constitution creates a point after which Congress can end it and, in the meantime, discourage it. He also complains that critics are misrepresenting this clause for political effect. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp)) The next group of powers is meant to preserve peace and proper relations among the states. These powers include regulating trade among the states and with Indian tribes, coining money and setting its value, punishing counterfeiting, setting standards for weights and measures, creating a uniform rule for naturalization, creating uniform bankruptcy laws, deciding how state records and court decisions will be recognized in other states, and establishing post offices and post roads. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp)) One major weakness of the Articles of Confederation was that Congress had no real power over trade between the states. That was a serious problem. Without national control, states with major ports or convenient trade routes could place burdens on goods moving through their territory and profit at the expense of neighboring states. That would be unfair, but even more important, it would create resentment, rivalry, and long-term conflict. The Constitution fixes this by giving the federal government authority over interstate commerce. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp)) Madison argues that experience shows this danger is real. When local governments are left free to tax or obstruct one another’s trade, they often do exactly that. He points to examples from other confederacies in Europe to show that this is a common problem. A union of states needs some higher authority to keep trade fair and to prevent the member states from harming one another. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp)) He also says the Constitution handles commerce with Indian tribes better than the Articles of Confederation did. The Articles used confused language that tried to divide authority in a way that did not really make sense. The result was uncertainty, disagreement, and contradiction. The new Constitution gives clearer federal authority in this area. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp)) The power to coin money and regulate its value also properly belongs to the national government. The Constitution improves on the old system by making clear that foreign coins, not just American ones, can be regulated in a uniform way. Otherwise each state could treat currency differently, and the country would never have a reliable monetary system. For the same reason, the federal government should punish counterfeiting and set common standards for weights and measures. A functioning union needs consistency in all of these things. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp)) Madison also argues strongly for a single national rule for naturalization, meaning the rules by which immigrants become citizens. Under the old system, each state could set its own rules, and that created a strange and dangerous situation: one state could make someone a citizen under easy terms, and that person might then claim important rights in every other state. That would let one state effectively decide who enjoyed rights in another state. Madison says that is obviously unreasonable, and the Constitution wisely corrects it by putting this power in federal hands. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp)) Uniform bankruptcy laws are also sensible, because debts and property often cross state lines. If every state had completely different rules, people could hide assets, dodge obligations, or create endless confusion. National rules make commerce more honest and predictable. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp)) The Constitution also lets the federal government decide how public acts, records, and court proceedings from one state will be proved and treated in another state. Madison sees this as an important improvement. It would help courts do justice more effectively, especially near state borders, where people or property might quickly be moved from one jurisdiction to another. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp)) Finally, Madison says the power to establish post offices and post roads is harmless and useful. Better communication and easier travel help the states stay connected. Anything that improves contact and cooperation among the states is worth supporting. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp)) **Madison’s overall message is this:** the Constitution fixes important weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation by giving the national government the powers it needs to deal with foreign countries, regulate trade fairly, create uniform national rules, and keep the states from drifting into conflict with one another. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp)) If you want, I can also give you: 1. a **much shorter summary** of Federalist No. 42, 2. a **paragraph-by-paragraph breakdown**, or 3. a **version rewritten like a modern high school essay**. Sure — here’s **Federalist No. 43 in simpler, modern language**. This is a **plain-English paraphrase**, not a word-for-word translation. Federalist No. 43 was written by **James Madison** and dated **January 23, 1788**. ([founders.archives.gov](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0248)) ## Federalist No. 43, rewritten simply Madison says that several remaining powers in the Constitution are reasonable and necessary. 1. **Protecting authors and inventors** Congress should be able to give writers and inventors temporary legal protection for their work. This encourages new ideas and useful inventions. Individual states cannot handle this as effectively on their own. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed43.asp)) 2. **Controlling the national capital and federal sites** The national government must have full authority over the capital city and over places like forts, arsenals, and dockyards. If it did not, the federal government could end up depending on one state for safety and freedom to operate. At the same time, states must consent before land is given for these purposes. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed43.asp)) 3. **Punishing treason carefully** The United States must be able to punish treason against the United States. But Madison says the Constitution wisely defines treason narrowly and limits punishment, so leaders cannot abuse treason charges to attack political opponents. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed43.asp)) 4. **Admitting new states** The Constitution properly lets the Union add new states. But no new state should be created out of an existing state, or by merging states, unless both Congress and the states involved agree. That protects both large and small states from unfair changes. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed43.asp)) 5. **Managing U.S. territory and property** The federal government also needs the power to make rules about national territory and other property owned by the United States. Madison treats this as an important and sensible power. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed43.asp)) 6. **Guaranteeing republican government and protecting states** The Union should guarantee that every state keeps a republican form of government. It should also protect states from invasion and, when properly asked, help them deal with serious internal violence. Madison argues that a union of republics must be able to stop monarchy, aristocracy, or violent factions from overthrowing lawful government in a state. He also says real uprisings are not always decided simply by who has more voters; money, military skill, outside help, and even people outside the electorate can affect the outcome. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed43.asp)) 7. **Honoring old debts and promises** The new Constitution should not erase debts or obligations made under the old Confederation. A change in government does not cancel moral or legal promises. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed43.asp)) 8. **Allowing amendments** The Constitution needs a way to be amended, because experience may show that changes are needed. Madison says the amendment process is balanced: it is not so easy that the Constitution becomes unstable, but not so hard that obvious problems can never be fixed. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed43.asp)) 9. **Letting nine states ratify the Constitution** Madison says it makes sense that the Constitution could take effect once nine states approved it. Requiring all thirteen states to agree would let one stubborn or corrupt state block what the whole country needed. Even if some states delayed joining, he says both sides should still act justly and with restraint, hoping for reunion. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed43.asp)) ## One-sentence summary Madison’s main argument is that these constitutional powers are **practical safeguards**: they help the national government function, protect the states, preserve republican government, respect public obligations, and make it possible to improve and adopt the Constitution in a workable way. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed43.asp)) If you want, I can also turn this into: - a **very short summary** - a **paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite** - or a **high-school level version** even easier than this. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 44 rewritten in simpler, modern language**. ## Federalist No. 44, in plain English This essay argues that the Constitution is right to place certain limits on the states, and that the federal government needs enough power to carry out the responsibilities the Constitution gives it. Madison says some powers are too dangerous to leave in the hands of individual states. States should not be allowed to print their own paper money, make worthless money legal payment for debts, or pass laws that unfairly cancel or change private contracts. When states do things like that, it hurts honest people, destroys trust, weakens trade, and creates injustice. A good government must protect fairness and private agreements, not break them whenever it is politically convenient. He also says states should not be allowed to pass certain kinds of abusive laws, such as laws that punish people without a fair trial or laws that make an act illegal after it was already done. These are the kinds of laws that free governments should never allow, because they are tools of tyranny and favoritism. Madison argues that states also cannot be trusted to behave like separate independent countries. They should not be making their own military arrangements, acting on their own in foreign matters, or setting policies that could drag the whole country into conflict. If each state acted like its own nation, the Union would be weak, divided, and constantly in danger of disputes. He also defends the rule that states cannot place certain taxes on imports and exports without approval. If states could freely do this, they would interfere with national trade and hurt one another. The country needs one general system, not many competing state systems. Madison then turns to a major objection critics had raised: the Constitution says Congress may make laws that are “necessary and proper” for carrying out its listed powers. Critics claimed this was dangerous. Madison answers that this language is simply common sense. If the Constitution gives the government a job to do, it must also give the government the ability to do what is reasonably needed to perform that job. Otherwise, the powers listed in the Constitution would be useless words on paper. He says this clause does **not** give Congress unlimited power. Congress still only has the powers granted by the Constitution. The clause only allows Congress to use appropriate means to carry out those powers. Without such a clause, the government would be unable to function effectively. Madison also defends the part of the Constitution saying that federal laws made under the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. He says this is absolutely necessary. If federal law were not higher than state law when the Constitution gives the federal government authority, then each state could ignore national laws whenever it wanted. In that case, the Union would not really be a nation at all — it would just be a weak agreement among separate governments. In short, Madison’s point is that the Constitution wisely prevents states from doing things that history has shown to be harmful, unjust, and divisive. At the same time, it gives the national government the practical authority it needs to carry out its assigned duties. Without these limits on the states and these basic powers for the federal government, the Constitution would not be able to preserve order, justice, or unity. --- ## Very short version Federalist No. 44 says: - States should not be allowed to print bad money, break contracts, or pass unfair laws. - States should not act like separate countries. - The federal government needs practical power to carry out the powers the Constitution gives it. - Federal law must be higher than state law when the Constitution gives the federal government authority. - Without these rules, the Union would be weak and chaotic. If you want, I can also do one of these: 1. **an even easier middle-school version**, or 2. **a paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite** of Federalist No. 44. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 45 rewritten in simpler, modern language**. **Note:** This is a **plain-English paraphrase**, not a word-for-word translation. I kept Madison’s main ideas, but made them easier to read. --- # Federalist No. 45, in Simpler Words Many people are afraid that the new Constitution will give the national government too much power and destroy the state governments. I think those fears are exaggerated. If we look closely at the Constitution, we can see that the powers given to the federal government are **limited and clearly listed**. The powers left to the states are **much broader** and cover most of daily life. The federal government is mainly responsible for things that concern the whole nation, such as: - war and peace, - foreign policy, - trade with other countries, - and other major national interests. The state governments, on the other hand, will continue to handle the matters that affect people in their everyday lives, such as: - protecting life, liberty, and property, - maintaining order, - overseeing local laws, - and promoting the health, safety, and prosperity of their people. So the federal government’s powers are **few and specific**, while the states keep powers that are **numerous and wide-ranging**. Some people act as if the Constitution creates a great and dangerous change. But the truth is that the change is not as dramatic as they claim. The new Constitution does strengthen the federal government, but mostly because the current system under the Articles of Confederation is too weak to do its job. The old government cannot effectively protect the country, manage national affairs, or carry out laws that are supposed to benefit everyone. The Constitution fixes those problems by giving the federal government enough power to act where national action is necessary. Even so, the state governments will remain very important. In fact, they will continue to have a stronger and more direct influence on people’s lives than the federal government will. This is because the state governments are closer to the people. They deal with the everyday concerns of citizens. People know their state officials better, see them more often, and depend on them more directly. Because of this, people’s loyalty and affection are likely to stay stronger toward their state governments than toward the distant national government. Also, the federal government will not be able to function without the states. The states will still play an important role in the larger system. This means the national government is not likely to simply swallow them up. It is also worth remembering that in every political system, the branch of government closest to the people usually has the greatest advantage. State governments have this advantage. They have more officials, more local connections, and more direct contact with the public. If the federal government ever tried to take powers it was not supposed to have, the state governments would be in a strong position to resist. They could sound the alarm, rally public opinion, and organize opposition. Because the states are so connected to the people, they would be powerful defenders of the people’s rights. In addition, the state governments would have the support of many local leaders and, if necessary, the people themselves. It would be very difficult for the federal government to oppress the states or the people when so much power, influence, and public support would stand against it. History also shows that in confederacies and mixed political systems, it is usually the smaller local governments that threaten the central government, not the other way around. In other words, the danger is more often that the states will weaken the Union than that the Union will destroy the states. So, instead of fearing that the federal government will wipe out the states, we should understand that the Constitution creates a balance. The national government will have enough power to handle national issues, while the states will keep control over most local and internal matters. For these reasons, the claim that the Constitution will lead to the destruction of the state governments is not convincing. The states will remain powerful, important, and deeply connected to the people. The Constitution does not abolish them. It simply gives the Union the strength it needs to govern effectively in matters that concern the whole nation. --- If you want, I can also give you either: 1. a **very short summary** of Federalist No. 45 in 5–6 sentences, or 2. a **paragraph-by-paragraph simplified version** that follows the original more closely. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 46 rewritten in simpler, modern language**. **Note:** This is a **plain-English rewrite/paraphrase**, not a strict word-for-word translation. I’ve kept Madison’s main ideas and arguments, but made them easier to read. --- # Federalist No. 46, in Simpler Words The main question here is: **Which government would have more influence over the people — the state governments or the national government?** And if the national government ever tried to take too much power, **could the states and the people stop it?** My answer is yes. In America, both the state governments and the federal government get their power from the same source: **the people**. The federal government is not some outside ruler. It is created by the people, just like the state governments are. The officials in both governments are chosen, directly or indirectly, by the citizens. Still, the state governments will usually have a stronger connection to the people in everyday life. That is because state governments deal with many of the matters people notice most often: property laws, criminal justice, family matters, local order, and many other concerns that touch daily life. Because of this, people are likely to feel closer to their state governments than to the distant national government. The federal government’s powers are important, but they are also **limited**. They mostly involve national concerns such as war, peace, trade, foreign affairs, and relations among the states. The state governments, by contrast, keep authority over many of the ordinary issues that affect citizens most directly. So even if the federal government is powerful in some areas, the states remain powerful in many others. Some people worry that the federal government will slowly swallow up the state governments. But this fear is exaggerated. The federal and state governments are not natural enemies. In many cases, they will work together. The same citizens support both, and often the same leaders or political groups will have influence in both. So there is no reason to assume the federal government will automatically try to destroy the states. But let us suppose the worst. Suppose the federal government does try to gain too much power. What then? In that case, the state governments would not stand alone. They would have the support of the people, who are attached to them and represented in them. State leaders could sound the alarm, organize resistance, and unite public opinion. Members of Congress from those states would also likely object. The federal government would therefore face opposition not just from a few individuals, but from organized state institutions backed by their citizens. Also, the federal government could not easily enforce tyranny by military force. In a free country like America, the people are armed, and the states have militias made up of ordinary citizens. These militias are led by officers appointed by the states and tied to their communities. That is very different from many countries in Europe, where kings kept standing armies and the people were not similarly armed or organized. So imagine a national government trying to oppress the people. It would have to act against a population that is not helpless, against state governments that still exist, and against militias made up of citizens who are attached to their states and to liberty. That would be an enormous obstacle. A regular standing army, even if somewhat large, would not be enough to control a whole nation of armed citizens organized under state governments. In America, the people do not merely submit to government; they are part of it. They choose their rulers, and they have the means and the constitutional structure to resist serious abuse. This makes America very different from countries where governments rule from above and the people have little ability to resist. Here, power is divided. The federal government has certain powers. The states have others. Both depend on the people. That division itself is a protection against tyranny. So the real balance is this: - The federal government has important but limited powers. - The state governments retain broad authority over many everyday matters. - The people are attached to their states and represented in both levels of government. - If the federal government ever tried to become oppressive, it would face resistance from the states, from public opinion, and from armed citizens organized in militias. Because of all this, there is no serious reason to fear that the federal government will easily destroy the state governments or enslave the people. The structure of the American system makes that very difficult. In fact, the combination of **state governments, public loyalty to local institutions, and citizen militias** gives Americans a strong defense against federal overreach. This is one of the great advantages of a federal republic. So, when we compare the influence of the state and federal governments, we should see that the states will continue to hold major influence, especially in the ordinary lives of the people. And if the federal government ever becomes dangerous, the people and the states will have the power to resist it. That is why the Constitution should not be rejected out of fear that the national government will automatically crush the states. The system is designed to prevent that outcome. --- ## Very short summary **Madison’s main point in Federalist No. 46** is: > The federal government will not easily overpower the states, because the states remain close to the people, keep many important powers, and could rally citizens and militias to resist federal tyranny if necessary. --- If you want, I can also do one of these: 1. **an even shorter middle-school version**, 2. **a paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite**, or 3. **a bullet-point breakdown of Madison’s argument**. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 47 rewritten in simpler, modern words**. ## Federalist No. 47 — Simplified Rewrite One of the biggest objections to the proposed Constitution is that it does not keep the three parts of government separate enough. These three parts are: - the **legislative branch**, which makes laws - the **executive branch**, which carries out laws - the **judicial branch**, which interprets laws People often say that freedom cannot survive if all these powers are placed in the same hands. This idea is mostly based on the writings of **Montesquieu**, a political thinker whom many people respect. He argued that liberty is endangered when the same person or group controls lawmaking, law enforcement, and judging. If one body makes the laws and also enforces them, it could create unfair laws and use force however it wants. If the same body also acts as judge, then peoples rights and lives are no longer safe. But Montesquieu did **not** mean that the branches must be kept so completely separate that they have no connection at all. He meant that **no one branch should have the full power of the others**. When we look at the state constitutions, which were written by people strongly committed to liberty, we can see that they do not separate the branches perfectly. In almost every state, the branches have **some mixture** of powers. For example, in some states, the governor has a role in making laws by using a veto or by working with a council. In others, judges are appointed by the legislature. In still others, one branch has some influence over another. So if the critics were right that any mixing at all destroys liberty, then the state constitutions would also be guilty of the same problem. But clearly that is not the case. The real danger is not that branches have **any contact** with one another. The real danger is when **all the powers of government are gathered into the same hands**. In fact, some amount of connection between the branches is useful. It helps each branch defend itself against the others. A total separation, where each branch has no constitutional control or influence over the others, is not only unrealistic but also unsafe. The important principle is this: the legislative, executive, and judicial powers should not be **fully united** in the same person or body. As long as the main powers remain divided, liberty can still be protected. So the Constitution should not be judged by an impossible standard of total separation. It should be judged by whether it prevents the dangerous concentration of power. And on that point, the Constitution follows the true meaning of the principle of separated powers. ## Short version in one paragraph Federalist No. 47 argues that liberty is threatened when the same group controls all three powers of government—making laws, enforcing laws, and judging laws. Madison says critics misunderstand Montesquieu, because Montesquieu did not demand absolute separation between the branches. Instead, he warned against putting all power in the same hands. Madison points out that even state governments mix powers somewhat, yet they are still considered free governments. His main point is that the Constitution is acceptable because it does not completely merge the branches; it prevents total concentration of power. If you want, I can also do one of these: 1. a **very short summary** in 5 sentences, 2. a **paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite**, or 3. a **middle-school level version**. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 48 rewritten in simpler, modern English**. ## Federalist No. 48, in simpler words People often say that liberty is safest when the legislative, executive, and judicial branches are kept completely separate. That idea is good in theory, but in practice, just writing down those boundaries is not enough. The famous writer Montesquieu is often quoted on this subject. But he did not mean that the branches must have **no contact at all** with each other. He meant that **no one branch should have the full power of another branch**. Some limited overlap is unavoidable and even necessary. The real problem is this: even if a constitution clearly marks out the powers of each branch, that alone will not stop one branch from trying to take more power over time. A simple written rule is only a weak defense against ambition. Among the three branches, the **legislative branch** is the most likely to become too powerful. In a republic, it speaks for the people, controls money, and makes the laws, so it naturally has great influence. Because of this, it is the branch most likely to push beyond its proper limits. The legislative branch also has an advantage because its power is spread across many members. This makes it harder to detect danger right away, since it does not look as threatening as power concentrated in one person, like a king or governor. But that does not make it less dangerous. In fact, history shows that legislatures are often the biggest threat to the balance of government. They tend to gather power into their own hands and weaken the other branches. Some state constitutions have tried to prevent this by including statements that say the branches should stay separate. But experience has shown that these statements, by themselves, do not work very well. Legislatures have still crossed the line, even when the constitution clearly warned them not to. For example, in several states, the legislative branch has interfered with the executive and judicial branches despite these written protections. This proves that **parchment barriers** — meaning rules written on paper alone — are not enough to control power. So if we really want to preserve liberty, we need more than declarations and good intentions. We need a government designed so that each branch has the means and motivation to defend its own powers against the others. In short, **freedom cannot be protected just by saying power should be divided**. The Constitution must also include practical safeguards to keep any one branch — especially the legislature — from becoming too dominant. --- ## Very short version **Main idea of Federalist No. 48:** Just writing in the Constitution that the branches of government must stay separate is not enough. The legislative branch is especially likely to take too much power, so the government must be designed with real checks and balances to stop that from happening. If you want, I can also do one of these: 1. a **middle-school version**, 2. a **line-by-line rewrite**, or 3. a **one-paragraph summary**. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 49 rewritten in simpler, modern language**. **Note:** This is a **plain-English paraphrase**, not a word-for-word translation. I’ve tried to keep Madison’s main ideas while making them easier to read. --- # Federalist No. 49, in Simpler Words The question is this: **What should be done if one branch of government goes beyond its proper powers and violates the Constitution?** One proposed answer is to **appeal directly to the people**. Thomas Jefferson suggested that if one branch of government believes another branch has broken the Constitution, the people could be asked to hold a special convention and decide the issue. At first, this idea sounds reasonable. After all, **the people are the true source of political power**. Since the Constitution comes from them, it may seem proper to let them step in whenever the government breaks its limits. But even though the people are the ultimate authority, it **does not follow** that they should be called on every time there is a disagreement between parts of the government. There are several problems with this. ## 1. Frequent appeals to the people would weaken government A government needs some degree of **stability and respect** in order to work well. If political leaders are constantly asking the people to settle disputes between branches, the government will seem weak and unsettled. People would begin to think that the Constitution is always uncertain, always open to challenge, and always dependent on the latest political fight. That would reduce the public’s respect for the laws and for the Constitution itself. ## 2. Public decisions are often driven by passion, not calm judgment When political conflicts become intense enough to trigger an appeal to the people, emotions will already be running high. In those moments, the public is less likely to decide based on careful reason and more likely to respond to passion, party loyalty, or persuasive leaders. So, instead of solving constitutional disputes wisely, these appeals might simply turn them into **heated political battles**. ## 3. The people would not always judge fairly between the branches In theory, the people could act as neutral judges. But in practice, they might not. The different branches of government are not equally powerful. In a republic, the **legislative branch** usually has the most influence, because it is closest to the people and controls many important matters. That means that if a dispute arose between the legislature and another branch, the legislature would probably have the advantage in shaping public opinion. It could present itself as the defender of the people and make the other branch seem dangerous or corrupt. So these conventions might not truly protect the Constitution. They might simply help the strongest branch become even stronger. ## 4. The branches of government are not completely separate anyway It is also unrealistic to imagine that the branches can be kept in total separation. The Constitution intentionally mixes them in certain ways. For example, one branch may have some role in checking or influencing another. Because of this, constitutional disputes are not always clear-cut. The line between proper authority and improper interference is often hard to define. If every disagreement led to an appeal to the people, then ordinary tensions within government would constantly become public crises. ## 5. Small constitutional violations would rarely be worth a convention Some violations of constitutional boundaries may be too minor or uncertain to justify disturbing the whole political system. Calling conventions too often would be expensive, disruptive, and dangerous. But if conventions were called only rarely, then they would not really solve the problem of everyday abuses. So the proposed remedy is either **too extreme to use often** or **too weak to solve the problem regularly**. ## 6. Repeated conventions would unsettle the Constitution itself Every time a convention is called, people may not limit themselves to the exact issue that started the dispute. Once gathered, they may want to reconsider other parts of the Constitution too. This means that frequent conventions could gradually make the whole constitutional system unstable. Instead of preserving the Constitution, they might encourage constant revision and uncertainty. A constitution should not be so easy to reopen every time politicians quarrel. ## 7. The better answer is internal checks within government Rather than repeatedly appealing to the people, the safer method is to design the government so that **each branch can defend itself against the others**. Each branch should have enough independence, and enough constitutional tools, to resist encroachments by the others. This creates a system of **checks and balances**. That way, the Constitution is protected not by constant public intervention, but by the structure of government itself. ## Conclusion Yes, the people are the ultimate rulers in a republic. But they should not be asked to step in every time one branch of government claims another has crossed the line. Frequent appeals to the people would create instability, inflame passions, and probably favor the most powerful branch—especially the legislature. The better way to protect liberty is to build a government where each part can check the others, so that constitutional limits are defended **within the system**, not by constant political upheaval. --- If you want, I can also do one of these: 1. **make it even shorter**, like a one-paragraph summary 2. **rewrite it as very simple modern English**, almost middle-school level 3. **go paragraph by paragraph** through the original paper in plain language Of course — here is **Federalist No. 50 rewritten in simpler, modern language** while keeping Madison’s main ideas. --- ## Federalist No. 50, in simpler words In the last paper, I looked at the idea of asking the people themselves to settle conflicts between different branches of government whenever one branch breaks the Constitution. Now I want to consider a related idea: whether it would help to hold these public reviews at regular times instead of only in emergencies. At first, this might sound like a good solution. If conventions were held every so often, maybe they could calmly examine whether the Constitution had been violated and fix any problems. But in reality, this would not work very well. One problem is that these meetings would probably happen while political arguments and party conflicts were still fresh. People would not come together in a calm and neutral spirit. Instead, they would likely bring the same passions, loyalties, and grudges that caused the problem in the first place. That means the convention would not be a fair judge. Another problem is timing. If these reviews happened often, they would make government seem unstable. People would stop respecting the Constitution if they thought it was constantly being reopened and reconsidered. A government needs some degree of reverence and stability in order to function well. But if the reviews happened only after long stretches of time, then they would be too late to stop the damage. By then, unconstitutional actions might already have become habits, and those habits could be hard to reverse. So regular appeals to the people have the same weakness as occasional ones: they are unlikely to provide a reliable remedy against violations of the Constitution. There is also real-world evidence for this. Pennsylvania tried something similar under its constitution by creating a body called the **Council of Censors**, which met at fixed intervals to examine whether the government had followed the constitution. But this experiment did not work well. The members themselves became divided by party spirit and disagreement. Instead of calmly correcting abuses, they often reflected the same political conflicts already present in society. This shows that simply calling a special body together from time to time is not enough to protect the Constitution. The true problem is deeper. The legislative branch is usually the strongest branch in a republic because it is closest to the people and has the widest powers. Because of this natural advantage, it is not easy to restrain it just by arranging occasional or periodic appeals to the people. So, even though the people are the ultimate source of political authority, we should not rely on frequent appeals to them as the normal way of correcting constitutional violations. That method is too unstable, too emotional, and too ineffective. A better solution must be found within the structure of government itself. --- If you want, I can also do either of these: 1. **an even easier middle-school version**, or 2. **a paragraph-by-paragraph simplified rewrite closer to the original structure**. Absolutely — here is **Federalist No. 51 rewritten in simpler, modern language**. I’ve kept the main ideas but made the wording easier to understand. --- # **Federalist No. 51, in Simpler Words** When we design a government, the biggest challenge is this: the government must be strong enough to control the people when necessary, but it must also be controlled so it does not abuse its power. The most important protection against abuse is the people themselves. In a republic, power comes from the citizens, and leaders are supposed to answer to them. But experience shows that this alone is not enough. We also need the government’s structure to prevent any one part of it from becoming too powerful. That is why government power should be divided into different branches. Each branch should have its own responsibilities and enough independence to defend itself from the others. The people who work in one branch should not depend too much on the other branches for their jobs or salaries, because that would make them less independent. Ideally, each branch would have its own will and would not be controlled by the others. At the same time, each branch should have some constitutional power to check the others if they try to go too far. We cannot rely only on people being good or wise. We have to assume that those with power may try to expand it. Because of that, ambition must be used to limit ambition. In other words, the desire of each branch to protect its own power helps keep the whole government balanced. This may seem strange, but it reflects human nature. Why do we need government at all? Because people are not perfect. If people were angels, no government would be needed. And if angels governed people, government would not need controls. But since people govern other people, we must build a system where those in power are checked and restrained. In a representative government, the legislature is usually the strongest branch because it makes the laws and speaks most directly for the people. So it needs to be limited more carefully. That is why the legislature should be divided into two separate houses, with different methods of election and different rules. This makes it harder for the legislative branch to gather too much power in one place. The executive branch, meanwhile, should have enough strength to defend itself against the legislature. One useful tool is the veto, which allows the executive to block laws temporarily. But the executive should not be so weak that it cannot resist the legislature, and not so strong that it becomes dangerous itself. The goal is balance. There is another important protection for liberty in the American system: power is divided not only among branches of the national government, but also between the national and state governments. This creates what Madison calls a “double security” for the rights of the people. Power is split between two levels of government, and then each level is split again into separate branches. This makes it much harder for tyranny to take hold. A free society must also protect minorities from being oppressed by a majority. In a pure democracy, where everyone rules directly, a majority can easily unite and take away the rights of others. But in a large republic like the United States, with many different groups, interests, and opinions, it is harder for one majority group to dominate everyone else. Because society is so diverse, different factions balance one another out. As long as people are free, they will naturally form different groups based on religion, wealth, occupation, region, and many other interests. These differences cannot be eliminated without destroying liberty, so the better solution is to create a political system that prevents any one group from easily oppressing the rest. So the Constitution works by using both structure and diversity to protect freedom. It divides power among branches, divides authority between state and national governments, and governs such a large and varied society that no single group can easily take over. These arrangements help secure justice and liberty for everyone. --- ## **Very short summary** Federalist No. 51 argues that: - government must be strong enough to govern, - but also limited so it cannot abuse power, - so power should be divided among branches, - each branch should check the others, - power should also be divided between state and national governments, - and a large republic with many different groups helps protect minority rights. --- If you want, I can also do one of these: 1. **an even easier middle-school version**, 2. **a paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite**, or 3. **a one-page summary for class notes**. Of course — here is **Federalist No. 52 rewritten in simpler, modern language**. ## Federalist No. 52, in simpler words The House of Representatives is meant to be the part of the federal government that stays closest to the people. To make that happen, the Constitution says members of the House must be elected directly by the people. But this raises a few important questions: ### 1. Who gets to vote for House members? The Constitution says that whoever is allowed to vote for the larger branch of their state legislature can also vote for members of the U.S. House. This was a practical choice. If the federal government had created completely different voting rules from the states, it would have caused confusion and conflict. It also would have been risky to let the federal government decide voting qualifications on its own, because that might have allowed it to unfairly change who could vote. So instead, the Constitution lets the states’ existing voting rules decide who can vote in House elections. This keeps power closer to the people and avoids unnecessary trouble. ### 2. What qualifications must a representative have? The Constitution sets only a few requirements for someone to serve in the House: - They must be at least **25 years old** - They must have been a **U.S. citizen for at least 7 years** - They must live in the **state** they are chosen to represent These rules make sense. A representative should be old enough to have some maturity and judgment. They should also have enough connection to the country to understand its interests. At the same time, the rules are not so strict that they keep capable people from serving. ### 3. How many representatives should there be? A legislature should be large enough to understand the people’s needs, but not so large that it becomes chaotic and ineffective. If there are too few representatives, they may not truly reflect the people. If there are too many, the group may become disorderly, emotional, and unable to make wise decisions. So the real goal is balance: enough members to represent the public fairly, but not so many that the House cannot function well. The Constitution begins with a minimum number of representatives and allows that number to grow as the population grows. This means the House can expand over time as the country becomes larger. ### 4. Why are elections every two years? One of the most important features of the House is that its members are elected **every two years**. This is frequent enough to keep representatives accountable to the people. They will need to return often to the voters and answer for their actions. Some people argued that elections should happen every year. But two years is still short enough to keep representatives dependent on the people, while also giving them enough time to learn their job and gain useful experience. Lawmaking is not simple. Representatives need time to understand: - the laws - the economy - foreign affairs - the interests of different states - the practical effects of government decisions If elections happened too often, representatives might never have enough time to become truly effective before having to campaign again. So a two-year term strikes a good balance: - short enough to protect liberty - long enough to allow knowledge and competence ### Main idea of Federalist No. 52 The overall argument is this: The House of Representatives is designed to be the branch of the federal government most directly tied to the people. The Constitution protects this by: - letting the people elect House members directly - using familiar state voting rules - setting reasonable qualifications for representatives - keeping the House at a workable size - requiring elections every two years so representatives remain accountable In short, Madison argues that the House is built to be **close to the people, but still capable of governing wisely**. If you want, I can also give you: 1. a **very short summary in plain English**, or 2. a **paragraph-by-paragraph modern rewrite**. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 53** rewritten in **simpler, modern English**. ## Federalist No. 53, in simpler words The main question in this paper is whether members of the **House of Representatives** should serve for **two years** before facing election again. Some people think elections should happen every year so representatives stay closely tied to the people. That sounds reasonable, but we also have to think about whether lawmakers need enough time to actually learn how to do their job well. A representative cannot serve the public properly if he does not understand the people, the laws, and the issues facing the country. It takes time to gain that knowledge. Members of Congress must deal with many complicated matters, not just local concerns, but also national trade, taxes, military affairs, and relations with other countries. State lawmakers may be able to work with shorter terms because state governments usually handle more local and familiar issues. But the national government has broader and more difficult responsibilities. Because of that, members of the House need more time to learn and become useful. Laws themselves are also complicated. A good lawmaker should understand not only how laws are written, but how they affect the country in practice. That kind of experience does not come immediately after election. It grows over time. In addition, America is a large and diverse country. Different parts of the nation have different interests, habits, and economic needs. A representative should have enough time to understand not just his own area, but how the whole country fits together. There is also the matter of foreign affairs. Even though the House does not control everything in that area, national lawmakers still need some knowledge of other nations, treaties, trade, and diplomacy. That is another reason why a very short term would be a bad idea. So the Constitution chooses a middle ground. A two-year term is **not so long** that representatives stop depending on the people, but it is **long enough** for them to learn their duties and serve more effectively. In short, the paper argues that **two-year terms for House members are a sensible balance between democratic accountability and practical experience**. ## Even shorter version **Main idea:** James Madison argues that House members should serve for **two years**, not one, because lawmakers need time to learn the job and understand the country’s complex issues. Two years still keeps them accountable to voters, while giving them enough time to become effective. If you want, I can also: 1. make it **even shorter**, 2. rewrite it **paragraph by paragraph**, or 3. turn it into a **middle-school reading level version**. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 54 rewritten in simpler, modern language**. **Quick note:** This paper discusses slavery and defends the Constitution’s **three-fifths compromise**, so some of its ideas are morally wrong by modern standards. The rewrite below is meant to **explain the argument clearly**, not endorse it. --- ## Federalist No. 54 — Simplified Rewrite One criticism of the Constitution is the rule for counting population when deciding representation in Congress and direct taxes. The Constitution says that free people are fully counted, while enslaved people are counted as **three-fifths of a person**. People object to this by saying the rule seems strange and unfair. If enslaved people are really people, why not count them fully? But if they are treated as property, why count them at all? The answer given in the Constitution’s defense is that, under the laws of the slaveholding states, enslaved people were treated in **two different ways at once**. They were treated as **persons**, because they could be punished for crimes and were expected to obey the law. But they were also treated as **property**, because they could be forced to work and could be bought and sold. Because the law treated them as partly persons and partly property, the Constitution adopted a middle rule: count them as **three-fifths** when deciding representation and taxation. This rule is connected to both **political power** and **tax burden**. A state with more people should have more representatives in the national government. At the same time, if the national government imposes direct taxes, states with larger populations should also carry more of that burden. So the Constitution ties these two things together. The same population rule used to decide representation is also used to decide direct taxes. That means a state that gains more seats in Congress because of a larger population may also have to pay more in taxes because of that same population. This arrangement is presented as a compromise between states with different interests. States with many enslaved people wanted those people counted more fully for representation. States with fewer enslaved people resisted that. The Constitution settled on a middle position. The argument also says that this compromise is not as irrational as critics claim. Enslaved people are not counted exactly like free citizens, because they were denied the rights of citizens. But they are not ignored completely either, because they are still human beings living within the state and contributing through labor to its wealth and strength. In this way, the Constitution’s rule is defended as a practical political settlement. It is not presented as perfect, but as a way to balance conflicting interests and make union between the states possible. --- ## Very short summary **Federalist No. 54 argues that the three-fifths compromise was a political middle ground**. It says enslaved people were treated by slaveholding laws as both persons and property, so the Constitution counted them as three-fifths for representation and direct taxation. --- If you want, I can also do one of these: 1. **an even easier middle-school version**, 2. **a paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite**, or 3. **a modern summary explaining why the argument is controversial today**. Sure here is **Federalist No. 55 rewritten in simpler modern language**. I’ll keep the main ideas, but make the wording easier to follow. --- ## Federalist No. 55 — in simpler words Some people argue that the House of Representatives will start out too small and won’t truly represent the people. They worry that a small group of lawmakers could become corrupt or fail to understand the needs of the whole country. That concern is understandable, but no government can work if we assume that everyone in power will always abuse it. If we believed that, then no republican government would ever be possible. The real question is not whether abuse is imaginable, but whether the Constitution provides enough protections against it. And it does provide protections. Members of the House are elected directly by the people, and they have to face reelection often. That means they must stay connected to public opinion. If they do a bad job or betray the public trust, voters can remove them. This makes it harder for them to become completely separated from the people they represent. Also, the House is only one part of the government. It does not have unlimited power. Other branches and institutions act as checks on it. So even if we are cautious, we should not assume that this small body will immediately turn against the public. Now, about the number of representatives: it is true that the House begins with a fairly small number. But that number is not fixed forever. As the population grows, the number of representatives will grow too. The Constitution only sets the starting arrangement. There is also no perfect number for a representative body. If there are too few members, they may not know enough about the people and places they represent. But if there are too many, the group can become disorderly, emotional, and inefficient. A very large assembly is not always wiser. In fact, large groups often become more driven by passion and less capable of careful decision-making. So the goal is to find a middle ground: enough representatives to understand the people, but not so many that the legislature becomes chaotic. It is also mistaken to think that representatives must know every person and every local detail in order to make good laws. For national issues, lawmakers mainly need a solid understanding of the general interests of the country—things like agriculture, trade, taxes, and public needs. They do not need to know every small fact about every town. Experience also shows that small legislative bodies can work well, especially in the beginning. As long as the representatives are chosen by the people and answer to them regularly, a moderate number can be enough to protect liberty and make sensible laws. So while the House may seem small at first, that is not proof that it will fail. The number is large enough to begin the government, it will increase over time, and it avoids the dangers that come with making the assembly too large. In short, the Constitution strikes a reasonable balance. --- If you want, I can also give you either: 1. a **very short summary in plain English**, 2. a **line-by-line simplified version**, or 3. a **modern high-school-level rewrite**. Sure — here’s **Federalist No. 56** rewritten in **simpler modern language**. **Note:** This is a **plain-English paraphrase**, not a line-by-line translation. I’m keeping Madison’s main ideas, but expressing them more clearly. --- ## Federalist No. 56, in simpler words Some people argue that the House of Representatives will be too small to truly understand the needs of the people. They say that one representative cannot possibly know the concerns of so many citizens. But this objection asks too much of any representative body. No lawmaker can know every single person, business, or local issue in detail. That is not what representatives are supposed to do. What they need is a solid understanding of the **general interests** and conditions of the people they represent. Also, the federal government is not meant to control every part of life in every town and state. Its powers are limited. Because its responsibilities are limited, representatives do not need detailed knowledge of everything happening everywhere. They only need enough knowledge to make wise laws on the subjects the national government is actually allowed to handle. Most of the important matters Congress deals with are broad national issues, such as **taxes, trade, and the militia**. On these subjects, representatives need general knowledge, not perfect knowledge of every local detail. Take taxes, for example. Different parts of the country produce different goods and have different economic conditions. But Congress does not need one representative for every tiny local interest in order to tax fairly. Lawmakers can understand the main differences between regions and make general rules based on that knowledge. They can also get more information from the people, from state governments, and from experience. The same is true for trade. The rules of commerce are usually general, not highly local. A representative does not need to be an expert in every local market to understand what laws will help or harm trade. Information about commerce is usually well known, especially because merchants and traders pay close attention to it and speak up when laws affect them. The militia is another example. Laws about organizing and disciplining the militia do not require deep knowledge of every local condition. These are broad matters that can be handled with general rules. It is also important to remember that representatives are not cut off from the people. They are elected by them, live among them, and hear from them often. They can learn what they need to know through elections, public discussion, and contact with their communities. Over time, they become even more capable because experience teaches them more about the nation’s needs. And if the country grows, the House can grow too. The Constitution allows the number of representatives to increase as the population increases. So if more representation becomes necessary, it can be added. So the fear that the House will be too small is exaggerated. Representatives do not need complete knowledge of every local issue. They only need enough understanding of the people’s general interests to make sound national laws. Since the federal government’s powers are limited, and since the House can expand over time, the proposed system is reasonable and workable. --- If you want, I can also give you: 1. a **very short summary** of Federalist No. 56, 2. a **line-by-line modern rewrite**, or 3. a version written at a **high school reading level**. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 57 rewritten in simpler, modern language**. ## Federalist No. 57, in simpler words People who criticize the proposed Constitution say that the new House of Representatives will not truly care about ordinary citizens. They worry that once elected, representatives will become a separate ruling class and use power for themselves instead of for the people. But this fear does not make much sense when you look closely at how the House is designed. First, members of the House are chosen directly by the people. They are not appointed by kings, nobles, or a small elite group. They must win the support of regular voters. That means they depend on the people for their position. Second, the people who are eligible to be elected are not from some special class. Representatives will come from the same society as everyone else. They will be farmers, merchants, lawyers, and other citizens who live among the people and share their interests, habits, and concerns. Third, the laws they make will also apply to them. Representatives are not free to create one set of rules for the public and another for themselves. Whatever laws they pass will affect their own rights, property, families, and reputations too. Because of this, they have a strong reason to avoid making unfair or harmful laws. Fourth, representatives are elected often. They only serve for two years before they must face the voters again. If they ignore the people, act arrogantly, or abuse power, voters can remove them. Frequent elections are a powerful way to keep representatives responsible to the public. Also, people naturally want the respect and approval of others. Most representatives will care about their reputation. They will want to be seen as honorable and trustworthy, both by their communities and by the country. That desire for public respect will push many of them to act well. On top of that, a representative who hopes for a long political career cannot afford to betray the people. If he becomes known as selfish, corrupt, or oppressive, he will lose public support and likely lose office. So personal ambition, in this case, helps protect liberty instead of destroying it. The structure of government also helps. The House is only one part of the system. Power is divided, checked, and limited. This makes it harder for a small group to seize control and rule against the people’s interests. So when critics claim that the House will quickly turn into an oppressive body, they ignore the many safeguards built into the Constitution: direct election by the people, frequent elections, shared interests between representatives and citizens, the fact that laws apply equally to lawmakers, and the natural human desire for public approval. In short, the House of Representatives is designed to stay closely connected to the people. Its members will come from the people, be chosen by the people, be controlled by the people through elections, and live under the same laws as everyone else. For these reasons, there is good reason to believe they will remain faithful to the public. --- ## Very short version **Main idea of Federalist No. 57:** Madison argues that members of the House of Representatives will stay loyal to the people because: - **the people elect them directly,** - **they serve short terms,** - **they live under the laws they create,** - **they come from the same society as ordinary citizens,** and - **they want public respect and reelection.** So, he says the House is not likely to become a separate, oppressive ruling class. --- If you want, I can also give you: 1. a **paragraph-by-paragraph simplified version**, or 2. a **one-page high school level summary**. Sure — here’s a **plain-English rewrite of Federalist No. 58**. It keeps Madison’s main ideas, but uses simpler, more modern language. ## Federalist No. 58, rewritten in simpler words Some people argue that the House of Representatives will not have enough members, and that it may not grow as the population grows. This is an important concern, because in a free government the people need to be properly represented. If there are too few representatives, they may not understand the people well, and it may be easier for corruption or bad government to take hold. Still, this objection goes too far. The Constitution does not keep the House the same size forever. It requires the number of representatives to increase as the country grows. So the real question is not whether the House will grow, but whether it will grow enough. There is no perfect number of representatives that fits every country in every situation. If the number is too small, the people may not be represented fairly. But if the number is too large, the assembly may become disorderly, emotional, and ineffective. A legislature must be large enough to reflect the people, but not so large that it becomes confused and hard to manage. People often assume that a larger group is automatically wiser or more trustworthy. But that is not always true. Very large assemblies often become chaotic. Debate becomes harder, serious thinking becomes weaker, and a few loud or clever leaders can easily take control. In that case, having more representatives does not really protect liberty. It may actually make government worse. History shows that very large public assemblies are often unstable. When too many people try to act together in one body, they can become more driven by passion than by reason. This means that simply increasing the number of representatives does not guarantee better government. The national legislature does not need to know every small local detail in every town. Federal laws deal mostly with broad national matters, such as taxes, trade, war, and other large concerns. Representatives only need enough knowledge of the general interests and conditions of the people to make wise decisions on those issues. They do not need to be familiar with every individual person or every small neighborhood. Also, many local issues will still be handled by state governments. That means the federal House of Representatives does not need to be as large as some critics claim. State legislatures will remain closer to the people in local matters, while the federal government will focus on national matters. Some critics worry that Congress will not allow the House to grow when the population grows. But this fear is not very convincing. Members of the House are elected directly and regularly by the people, so they have a strong reason to stay responsive to public opinion. As the larger states gain more people, they will also demand more representation. It would be very hard for Congress to ignore that pressure for long. So the Constitution takes a reasonable middle path. It avoids making the House too small to represent the people properly, but it also avoids making it so large that it becomes disorderly and foolish. Freedom is not protected by making the legislature endlessly bigger. It is protected by having a legislature that is large enough to represent the people and small enough to act wisely. In the end, the objection is weak. The House will grow with the country. And the Constitution is designed to balance two important goals: fair representation and effective government. --- If you want, I can also give you: 1. a **much shorter summary**, 2. a **line-by-line modern rewrite**, or 3. a **version written like a high school student would say it**. Sure — here’s **Federalist No. 59 rewritten in simpler, modern language**. **Note:** This is a **plain-English paraphrase**, not a line-by-line translation. I’m keeping Hamilton’s main argument, but making it easier to read. --- ## Federalist No. 59, in simpler words One of the strongest complaints against the Constitution is that it gives the national government some power over elections for Congress. Critics say this is dangerous because Congress might use that power to control elections and keep itself in office. But this criticism ignores an important fact: **every government must have the power to protect its own existence**. Under the Constitution, the states are the ones that normally set the **times, places, and manner** of elections for Senators and Representatives. So the states keep the first and main control over congressional elections. However, the Constitution also allows Congress to step in and change those rules if necessary. This backup power is absolutely necessary. Why? Because if the states had complete control, they could simply refuse to hold elections for Congress. If that happened, the national government could be destroyed. It would make no sense to create a federal government and then leave its survival entirely in the hands of the state governments. A government that depends on another power for its own existence is weak and unsafe. Some people seem to believe the states would never abuse this power. But political power should not be built on blind trust. We must assume that governments, like people, may sometimes act out of ambition, jealousy, fear, or self-interest. If a state became hostile to the Union, it might try to weaken or even break the national government by interfering with federal elections. This is why Congress must have the authority to step in. Without it, the Union would always be in danger. The objection that Congress might abuse this power is much less serious than the danger on the other side. Yes, any power can be abused. But if the states had exclusive control over federal elections, they would have the ability to destroy the federal government altogether. That danger is greater than the possibility that Congress might misuse its supervisory power. Also, it is unlikely that Congress would use this power in a reckless or oppressive way. Members of the House of Representatives depend directly on the people for election. They would not likely support election laws that outrage the voters and threaten their own positions. The Senate, too, is connected to the states and would provide another check. So the Constitution wisely gives the states the first authority over elections, while also giving Congress the power to intervene if the national government’s survival is at risk. In short, this arrangement is reasonable and necessary. It balances state involvement with federal self-protection. Without it, the Constitution would leave the Union vulnerable to being destroyed by the very states it is supposed to unite. --- ## Even shorter summary Hamilton’s main point is: - **States usually run congressional elections.** - **Congress can step in if needed.** - This is necessary because otherwise a state could refuse to hold elections and cripple the national government. - A government must have the power to preserve itself. - Therefore, giving Congress some control over federal elections is not a flaw — it is a necessary safeguard. --- If you want, I can also do one of these: 1. **a very short 1-paragraph version**, 2. **a middle-school reading level version**, or 3. **a line-by-line modern rewrite**. Sure — here is a **plain-English rewrite of the main argument in Federalist No. 60**. I’m keeping the ideas, but saying them in simpler, more modern language rather than copying the original style. --- ## Federalist No. 60, rewritten in simpler words Some critics of the Constitution say that if the national government gets any control over elections for the House of Representatives, it might use that power unfairly. They worry Congress could set up election rules that favor certain kinds of people—like the rich, the powerful, or people from one class of society—while shutting out everyone else. But this fear does not make much sense when you look carefully at the Constitution. The Constitution does **not** let Congress decide who is allowed to vote for members of the House of Representatives. Instead, it says that the people who can vote for the House will be the same people who can vote for the larger branch of their own state legislature. In other words, the states decide voter qualifications, not Congress. Because of that, Congress cannot say that only wealthy people may vote, or only landowners, or only merchants, or only members of some favored group. The national government simply does not have that power. The same is true for the people who run for office. The Constitution already lists the qualifications for being a member of the House: a person must meet certain age, citizenship, and residency requirements. Congress cannot add new rules that say only rich men, nobles, or members of a special class may be elected. So the claim that Congress could use election laws to fill the House with only one class of people is greatly exaggerated. The Constitution blocks that kind of abuse. It is true that Congress has some power over the **times, places, and manner** of holding elections. But that is very different from having the power to decide **who may vote** or **who may serve**. The power it has is limited, and it does not reach the heart of the matter that critics are worried about. Also, if Congress ever tried to use its election power in an obviously unfair way, the public would notice immediately. Members of the House are elected often and depend directly on the people for their jobs. It would be foolish for them to attack the rights of the very voters who can remove them from office. In a country like America, it is also hard to separate people neatly into fixed classes with completely opposite interests. Society is too mixed for that. Any attempt to permanently favor one group over another would be difficult to carry out and even harder to maintain. For these reasons, the objection is weak. The power given to the national government over elections is not a weapon for creating an aristocracy or oppressing the people. It is mainly a practical safeguard to make sure the national government can continue to function and cannot be destroyed by problems or interference in the election process. --- ## Very short version Hamilton’s basic point in Federalist No. 60 is this: **People are afraid Congress will use election rules to help the rich or powerful stay in control, but the Constitution does not give Congress the power to decide who can vote or who can run for the House. Those things are mostly fixed by the Constitution and by the states. So the fear that Congress will turn the House into a body for only one class of people is mostly unfounded.** --- If you want, I can also do one of these: 1. a **paragraph-by-paragraph simplified rewrite**, 2. a **short summary for students**, or 3. a **version written like a modern high school essay**. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 61 rewritten in simpler, modern language**. ## Federalist No. 61, in Plain English The Constitution says that the **states** will usually decide the **time, place, and way** that elections for members of Congress are held. But it also says that **Congress can step in and change those rules if necessary**. Some people object to this. They worry that Congress might use this power to manipulate elections and keep itself in power. But this fear is exaggerated. A national government must have some way to protect its own existence. If the states had complete control over congressional elections, they could simply refuse to hold them. If that happened, the national government could be destroyed by the states. That would make the Union weak and unstable. It makes sense, then, to let the states handle elections at first, because they are closer to the people and better able to manage local details. But it also makes sense to give Congress a backup power, so that if a state abuses its power or refuses to act, the federal government can still survive. This is not a dangerous arrangement. In most cases, the states will continue to set the rules. Congress would only need to interfere in unusual situations. And if Congress ever tried to abuse this power, the people would notice and could respond through elections and public pressure. There is also no reason to assume that Congress would naturally want to make election rules unfair. Representatives depend on the people for their positions. They cannot easily separate their own interests from the interests of the voters. If they become too corrupt or too power-hungry, they risk losing public support. Some critics also complain that the Constitution does not spell out every detail of how elections must be conducted. But that level of detail is not practical in a national constitution. Different states have different circumstances, and election rules may need to change over time. It is better to allow flexibility than to lock the country into one rigid system. In short, the Constitution’s rule is sensible: **states run congressional elections in the first instance, but Congress has the authority to step in if needed to protect the national government.** Without this power, the Union could be held hostage by individual states. ## Even Shorter Version Hamiltons main point in Federalist No. 61 is this: - States should normally run elections for Congress. - But Congress must have the power to override state rules if necessary. - Otherwise, states could weaken or even destroy the federal government by refusing to hold elections. - Fears that Congress would abuse this power are overstated. - A constitution should leave some flexibility instead of trying to regulate every election detail forever. If you want, I can also do one of these: 1. a **middle-school level rewrite**, 2. a **line-by-line simplification**, or 3. a **one-paragraph summary**. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 62 rewritten in simpler, modern language**. Ill keep the main ideas, but put them in plain English rather than 1700s style. --- ## Federalist No. 62 — Simple Rewrite Federalist No. 62 explains **why the Senate should exist and why it is designed the way it is**. The Constitution creates two houses in Congress: the **House of Representatives** and the **Senate**. This paper explains why the Senate is necessary and why its rules make sense. ### Why have a Senate at all? In any government, it is dangerous to give all lawmaking power to just one group of people. A single assembly can act too quickly, too emotionally, or too carelessly. People are not always calm and reasonable, especially when strong feelings or popular passions are involved. So it is safer to divide legislative power between two bodies. One can check the other. This helps prevent bad decisions and makes the lawmaking process more careful. --- ### Why are senators older and more experienced? The Constitution says senators must be at least **30 years old**, while members of the House only have to be **25**. This makes sense because the Senate is supposed to be a more mature and thoughtful body. Senators should have more experience, better judgment, and a broader understanding of public affairs. The Constitution also requires senators to have been U.S. citizens for **9 years**, compared with **7 years** for House members. This is because senators will deal with important national matters, including foreign policy, and should have a stronger attachment to the country. --- ### Why does each state get two senators? One of the most debated parts of the Constitution is that **every state gets equal representation in the Senate**, no matter how large or small it is. At first, this may seem unfair. In a perfectly equal system, states with more people would have more influence. But the Constitution was created through compromise. Large states and small states had different interests, and this arrangement was necessary to unite them. So even if equal representation is not perfect in theory, it was a practical solution that helped create the Union. Without this compromise, the Constitution might never have been accepted. It also helps protect the role of the states as political communities, not just as districts of one national government. --- ### Why were senators originally chosen by state legislatures? The Constitution originally provided that senators would be chosen by **state legislatures**. This gave state governments a direct role in the national government and helped connect the federal system to the states. It also made sense because senators were meant to represent not just the people in general, but also the states as organized political bodies. --- ### Why do senators serve six-year terms? Members of the House serve only **two years**, but senators serve **six years**. This longer term is important for several reasons. First, senators need time to learn their job well. Government, especially national government, is complicated. A senator cannot become truly useful if he is constantly worried about immediate reelection. Second, longer terms create stability. If lawmakers change too often, government becomes inconsistent and confused. Third, some issues — especially foreign affairs — require knowledge, steadiness, and secrecy. The Senate needs members who can build experience over time and act with care. --- ### Why does the Senate help protect the country from sudden mistakes? Sometimes the public itself becomes excited, angry, or misled. In those moments, people may support decisions they later regret. A good government should not blindly follow every sudden public passion. It should leave room for calm reflection. The Senate is meant to slow things down when necessary. It can help protect the people from temporary errors and prevent hasty decisions from becoming law too quickly. --- ### Why is stability in the law so important? One of the biggest problems in government is when laws are constantly changing. If laws change all the time: - people do not know what the rules are, - government loses respect, - businesses cannot plan, - justice becomes uncertain, - and clever or powerful people can take advantage of the confusion. When laws are unstable, ordinary citizens suffer most. Those with money, influence, or insider knowledge are better able to adapt and profit from constant legal changes. The public is left confused and disadvantaged. So a good government should make laws carefully and avoid endless changes. The Senate helps do this by adding steadiness and caution to the legislative process. --- ## Short Plain-English Summary Federalist No. 62 argues that the Senate is necessary because: 1. **One legislative body alone is too risky.** 2. **The Senate should be more mature and experienced than the House.** 3. **Equal representation of states was a necessary compromise.** 4. **Longer terms help create wisdom, consistency, and stability.** 5. **The Senate protects the country from rash decisions and constantly changing laws.** In short, Madison says the Senate exists to make government **more thoughtful, stable, and trustworthy**. --- If you want, I can also give you: 1. a **much shorter one-paragraph version**, 2. a **line-by-line modern rewrite**, or 3. a **high-school level summary**. Sure — here is **Federalist Paper No. 63 rewritten in simpler words**. I’ll keep the main ideas, but put them into more modern, easier language. ## Federalist No. 63 in simpler words A republic should listen to the people, but it also needs leaders who can stay calm and think carefully. Sometimes the public gets caught up in strong emotions or sudden opinions. When that happens, the government needs a part that can slow things down and prevent harmful decisions. This is one important reason for having a **Senate**. Senators serve longer terms than members of the House, so they are less likely to be pushed around by temporary public anger or excitement. They can take a longer view and make decisions based on the country’s lasting interests, not just whatever people feel at the moment. History shows that even free governments can make serious mistakes when people act out of fear, passion, or misinformation. A wise government should be designed to protect against that. The Senate helps do this by giving the nation a group of officials who can review decisions more calmly and steadily. The Senate is also useful because the country needs some leaders who can build **experience** over time. In foreign affairs especially, this matters a lot. Other nations are more likely to trust and respect the United States if they know some American leaders will stay in office long enough to understand complicated issues and keep agreements consistent. A government that changes too quickly or too often can look weak and unreliable. If no one remains in office long enough to know what they are doing, then treaties, negotiations, and national policy may become confused. The Senate helps prevent that by giving the government more stability. The Senate also protects the character of the nation. Sometimes a country may be tempted to do something unfair, impulsive, or dishonorable. A smaller and more thoughtful body can help stop that from happening. Senators can act as a check when the rest of the government or the public is rushing toward a bad decision. This does **not** mean the Senate should rule over the people. In a republic, all power still comes from the people. But the people’s government should include safeguards against short-term mistakes. The Senate is one of those safeguards. So the Senate is valuable for three main reasons: 1. It adds **stability** to government. 2. It provides **wisdom and experience**, especially in foreign affairs. 3. It helps protect the nation from **sudden, emotional, or reckless decisions**. In short, Federalist No. 63 argues that a good republic needs not only representatives who reflect the people’s wishes, but also a Senate that can slow things down, think ahead, and protect the long-term good of the country. ## Very short summary **Main idea:** Madison argues that the Senate is necessary because it gives the government steadiness, experience, and protection against temporary public passions. If you want, I can also do one of these: - a **paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite** - a **middle-school level version** - a **one-page summary for class notes** Sure — here is a **plain-English rewrite of Federalist No. 64**. I’m **keeping the main ideas** of the essay, but putting them into **simpler, more modern language** rather than translating every sentence exactly. --- ## Federalist No. 64, rewritten in simpler words Now I want to explain why the Constitution gives the **President and the Senate** the power to make treaties with other countries. This is an important power, because treaties can affect the nation’s safety, peace, trade, and honor. They should not be made by people who are careless, emotional, or easily influenced. They should be made by people who are thoughtful, trustworthy, and able to look after the long-term interests of the country. The Senate is a good body for this job. It is small enough to discuss serious matters carefully, and its members usually have enough experience to judge difficult questions wisely. Because senators serve longer terms, they are more likely to provide steadiness and consistency. That matters a lot in foreign affairs, because negotiations with other countries can take a long time. A government that keeps changing too quickly may not be able to negotiate well. The President is also well suited for this work. In foreign affairs, some parts of negotiation require **secrecy, speed, and quick decision-making**. One person can often do that better than a large group. The President can gather information, talk with foreign representatives, and take the first steps in a negotiation more effectively than a large assembly could. For that reason, it makes sense for the President to lead the negotiation. But it would not be safe to let the President make treaties entirely alone. A treaty can have enormous consequences, so there should be a strong check on that power. The Constitution provides that check by requiring the **advice and consent of the Senate**, and not just by a simple majority, but by **two-thirds of the senators present**. That makes it much harder for bad treaties to be approved. This arrangement combines the strengths of both parts of government. The President brings energy, secrecy, and speed. The Senate brings judgment, stability, and restraint. Together, they are more likely to make good treaties than either one acting alone. Sometimes the President may think it is best to consult the Senate while a negotiation is still going on. Other times, it may be wiser to complete most of the negotiation first and then present the finished agreement to the Senate for approval. Different situations call for different methods, and the Constitution allows enough flexibility for that. It is also useful that the Senate is a continuing body. Not all senators leave office at the same time, so the government can preserve knowledge and experience over the years. Foreign nations are more likely to trust and respect a country that can act with consistency. If every important official changed all at once, the nation might seem unstable or unreliable. Some people worry that those who make treaties might abuse their power or be corrupted by foreign influence. That is a real danger in any form of government. But no system can remove that risk completely. The best we can do is create a system that makes abuse less likely. The Constitution does that by dividing the treaty power between the President and the Senate and by requiring a large agreement in the Senate before any treaty can be approved. A large popular assembly would not be as well suited to this job. Big groups are often too slow, too public, and too changeable to handle delicate foreign negotiations well. Important diplomatic matters sometimes require confidentiality and patience. Those qualities are harder to find in a body that is very large and constantly shifting. So the Constitution’s plan is sensible. It gives the nation enough secrecy and speed to negotiate effectively, but it also gives enough caution and oversight to protect the public interest. That balance is exactly what is needed in making treaties. In short, the main point is this: **foreign agreements should be made by leaders who are informed, steady, and accountable**. The Constitution gives that responsibility to the President and the Senate because they are the parts of government best designed to handle it. --- If you want, I can also give you either: 1. a **much shorter summary** of Federalist No. 64, 2. a **paragraph-by-paragraph modern translation**, or 3. a **high school level version** that’s even easier to read. Sure — here’s a plain-English rewrite of the main argument in **Federalist No. 65** by **Alexander Hamilton**, published on **March 7, 1788**. In this essay, Hamilton explains why the **Senate** was chosen to handle **impeachment trials**. ([founders.archives.gov](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0215)) **Plain-English rewrite** The Constitution gives the Senate some special powers. One of the biggest is acting as the court that hears impeachment cases. Hamilton says this is a very difficult responsibility to place anywhere in a government where officials are chosen by the people. ([founders.archives.gov](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0215)) Impeachment is about wrongdoing by public officials — in other words, when leaders abuse the public’s trust. These offenses are political because they harm society as a whole, not just one private person. Because of that, impeachment cases usually create strong emotions, divide the public into sides, and get tangled up with party conflict. As a result, decisions may be driven more by political power than by clear proof of guilt or innocence. ([founders.archives.gov](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0215)) Hamilton argues that the Senate is the best available body to handle these trials. Since one part of Congress, the House, brings the charges, it makes sense for the other part, the Senate, to judge them. He also notes that Britain and several state constitutions used a similar setup, where one body accuses and another body decides the case. ([founders.archives.gov](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0215)) He does not think the Supreme Court would be a better choice. Impeachment trials are too serious, too political, and too unusual. There is no jury standing between the judges and the accused, and the outcome can ruin someone’s name, career, and future. Hamilton also worries that if the same judges handled both impeachment and later criminal trials, the accused would not get a fair second judgment. ([founders.archives.gov](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0215)) He also considers the idea of creating a totally separate court just for impeachments, but he says that would make government more complicated, more expensive, and less practical. A special court might be hard to gather quickly, and delays could hurt innocent people, help guilty people, and damage the public interest. So even if the Senate is not perfect, Hamilton believes it is the most workable option. ([founders.archives.gov](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0215)) In the end, Hamilton says no system of government will ever be perfect in every detail. People should not reject the whole Constitution just because one part of it might be less than ideal. The real question is whether the overall plan is strong, useful, and better than the alternatives. ([founders.archives.gov](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0215)) If you want, I can also turn it into: 1. a **very short summary**, 2. a **line-by-line modern translation**, or 3. a **super simple middle-school version**. Sure here’s **Federalist No. 66 rewritten in simpler, modern English**. This paper was published on **March 11, 1788**, is attributed to **Alexander Hamilton**, and argues that it makes sense for the **Senate to hold impeachment trials**. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed66.asp)) ## Federalist No. 66, in simpler words Some people still object to the idea of letting the Senate decide impeachment cases. I want to go over the main objections and show why they are not strong enough to reject this part of the Constitution. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed66.asp)) The first objection is that this gives the Senate both political and judicial power, which seems to go against the principle that the branches of government should be kept separate. But that principle does not mean the branches must be completely cut off from one another in every single way. In real governments, some overlap is not only acceptable but necessary. Sometimes one branch needs a limited power over another in order to keep it from becoming too strong. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed66.asp)) That is exactly what impeachment does. It gives the legislature a way to check abuses by executive officers. At the same time, the Constitution avoids the danger of having the exact same people act as both accusers and judges. The House of Representatives brings the charges, while the Senate decides whether those charges are proven. That division helps protect against unfairness and political revenge. Also, conviction requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate, which gives strong protection to innocent people. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed66.asp)) It is also worth pointing out that many of the same critics praise state constitutions that mix powers even more than the proposed federal Constitution does. Hamilton notes that New York’s own system gave its Senate major judicial authority. So if this arrangement is supposedly unacceptable in the federal government, those critics should also object just as strongly to the systems they already support. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed66.asp)) The second objection is that giving the Senate this job adds too much power to that body and makes the government look too aristocratic. The Senate already helps with treaties and appointments, and now it would also judge impeachments. Critics say this gives it too much influence. But that objection is vague. Instead of guessing that the Senate might become too powerful, we should ask a simpler question: for each of these powers, where is the best place to put it? If the Senate is the best available place for the impeachment power, then the fear of “too much influence” is not enough by itself to defeat the plan. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed66.asp)) And in any case, the House of Representatives has powerful advantages of its own. The House starts money bills. The House alone can bring impeachment charges. And if no presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the House chooses the President. These powers give the House important influence and help balance the Senate. So the Constitution does not leave the Senate without checks. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed66.asp)) The third objection is that the Senate helps confirm officers, so maybe it would be too lenient when judging those same officers in impeachment trials. In other words, critics worry that the Senate would be unwilling to punish officials it helped put into office. But that concern is weaker than it sounds. In many governments, the people who participate in appointing officers also have some role in removing them or supervising them. The basic assumption is that people who help place someone in office will also care whether that person does the job well. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed66.asp)) More importantly, the Senate does not actually choose officers by itself. The President nominates people. The Senate can only approve or reject the President’s choice. That means senators are not likely to feel any deep personal attachment to a nominee simply because they voted to confirm him. They may even have preferred someone else, but accepted the President’s choice because there was no good reason to oppose it. So there is little reason to think senators would ignore strong evidence of wrongdoing just to protect an officer they merely approved. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed66.asp)) The fourth and strongest objection concerns treaties. Since the Senate works with the President in making treaties, critics argue that senators would be judging their own misconduct if corruption in treaty-making ever became the subject of impeachment. At first glance, this sounds persuasive. But Hamilton says it rests on a false assumption about what impeachment is meant to do in this situation. The Constitution’s main protection against corrupt treaties is not the hope of later punishing two-thirds of the Senate. The real protection is supposed to be the character, number, and selection of the people involved in making treaties in the first place. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed66.asp)) It would make little sense to design a system around the idea of impeaching and punishing two-thirds of the Senate for approving a bad treaty. Governments generally do not punish whole legislative majorities for passing bad laws, even when those laws are harmful or unjust. In the same way, you would not normally expect to punish such a large share of the Senate for approving a harmful treaty. Members acting together in their official, collective role must have some freedom to deliberate and decide without constantly facing criminal punishment for political decisions. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed66.asp)) That does not mean corruption would go unchecked. If the President acted dishonestly in negotiations, or ignored the Senate’s directions, the Senate would have every reason to punish that abuse. And if a small number of senators had corruptly manipulated the rest, there is every reason to think the Senate would be willing to sacrifice those individuals once convincing proof appeared. People are often very ready to blame a few leaders when the public is angry, especially if doing so helps protect the larger body from blame. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed66.asp)) So the conclusion is this: the objections to giving the Senate the power to try impeachments are either exaggerated or based on misunderstandings. Some overlap between branches is normal and useful. The House and Senate divide the impeachment process in a way that reduces abuse. The Senate’s role in appointments does not make it too biased to judge misconduct. And the treaty objection asks impeachment to do something it was never meant to do. For these reasons, Hamilton argues that the Senate is still the most suitable body to conduct impeachment trials. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed66.asp)) If you want, I can also give you: 1. a **much shorter summary** of Federalist No. 66, 2. a **line-by-line modern paraphrase**, or 3. a **middle-school level version**. Sure — here’s **Federalist No. 67 rewritten in simpler modern language**. This is a **plain-English paraphrase**, not a line-by-line translation. --- ## Federalist No. 67, in simpler words People who oppose the Constitution have tried very hard to make the President seem more powerful and dangerous than he really is. They describe him almost like a king, hoping people will fear the office and reject the new government. But if you read the Constitution carefully, that picture is misleading. The President is **not** given the kind of unlimited powers that kings have. He does not rule by himself. His authority is limited, and in many important matters he must work with others. One of the biggest false claims is about the President’s power to appoint people to office. Some critics act as if the President can fill all jobs however he wants. That is not true. Under the Constitution, the President can **nominate** ambassadors, judges, and other officers, but he cannot appoint them on his own. The **Senate must approve** them. So the power is shared. This means the President cannot simply surround himself with whoever he wants without any check. There is one exception: when the Senate is not in session and an office suddenly becomes empty, the President can temporarily fill that vacancy. But this is only a practical measure so the government can keep working. It does **not** give him permanent control over appointments. Once the Senate returns, the regular process applies again. So the critics are wrong to pretend this temporary power makes the President a monarch. It is just a convenient way to prevent government business from stopping when the Senate is away. In fact, if you compare the President’s powers to those of the British king, the difference is obvious. The British king has far broader authority. The President cannot hand out titles of nobility, cannot create offices at will, and cannot make permanent appointments without the Senate’s agreement. The President is therefore much more restrained than a king. His office is designed with limits and checks. The real issue is that some opponents of the Constitution are counting on people not to read closely. They exaggerate, twist the meaning of certain clauses, and present the executive branch as far more threatening than it actually is. If we judge honestly, the Constitution does **not** create an elective king. It creates an executive officer with defined powers, checked by the Senate and by the structure of the government itself. So there is no good reason to panic about the presidency. The office is strong enough to do its job, but not strong enough to become a monarchy. --- ## Very short summary Hamilton’s main point in Federalist No. 67 is: - Critics are falsely portraying the President as a king. - The President’s appointment power is **limited**. - Most appointments require **Senate approval**. - Recess appointments are only **temporary**. - Therefore, the Constitution does **not** create a monarch-like executive. --- If you want, I can also give you: 1. an **even easier middle-school version**, 2. a **paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite**, or 3. a **one-page summary of all Hamilton’s main arguments** in Federalist 67. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 68 rewritten in simpler, modern language**. **Note:** This is a **plain-English paraphrase**, not a word-for-word translation. Also, Hamilton was describing the **original presidential election system in 1788**, and some details changed later with the **12th Amendment**. --- # Federalist No. 68, in Simpler Words One of the most important parts of the Constitution is the way it chooses the President. If this part is done well, it will help protect the country. The method in the Constitution seems, overall, to do a good job. It is especially important that the President be chosen by men and women capable of doing the job well. The office should go to someone with strong ability and good character. The Constitution’s method gives the people a role in choosing the President, but it does so in a careful way. Instead of having the whole country directly choose the President all at once, the people in each state choose a small group of electors. These electors meet only for the special purpose of selecting a President. This makes it more likely that the decision will be made calmly and thoughtfully, instead of being driven by sudden emotions, mob pressure, or political chaos. A small number of people, chosen by the public for this one task, will probably be more informed and better able to judge who is truly qualified. They can focus on the decision and think carefully about who is best suited for such an important office. This system also lowers the risk of corruption. Because the electors meet in their own states instead of gathering together in one place, it is harder for anyone to manipulate them as a group. It also makes it more difficult for foreign governments or other dangerous influences to interfere in the election. This protection against foreign influence matters a lot. Nothing would be more dangerous than allowing another country to gain power over the election of the American President. Since the President would have so much authority, foreign powers would naturally want to influence the choice. The Constitution tries to prevent that by making the process less open to bribery, conspiracy, or outside pressure. The Constitution adds another safeguard: no senator, representative, or person holding an office under the United States can serve as an elector. This helps make sure that the people choosing the President are not already part of the federal government and are less likely to be corrupted by it. The process also makes it more likely that the Presidency will go to someone who has earned national respect. A person with real talent and virtue is more likely to stand out across the whole country. On the other hand, someone who succeeds mainly through tricks, flattery, or popularity stunts may be able to win support in one state or one local area, but it will be much harder for that kind of person to win broad support across many states. Because of that, the office will usually go to people with the qualifications needed for such a serious position. There may be rare exceptions, but in most cases the system should favor worthy candidates over unworthy ones. It is also unlikely that a person will become President without having support from many parts of the Union. This is another advantage. It encourages the choice of someone with a wider reputation and broader trust. If no candidate receives enough support from the electors, the Constitution provides a backup plan. Another body will make the final choice from among the leading candidates. Even then, the system is designed to keep the final decision within a structured process rather than leaving it to disorder or accident. The same general process is also used to choose the Vice President. This is useful because the Vice President may sometimes need to step into the office of President, so it makes sense to choose that person with care as well. In short, the Constitution’s method of electing the President is a good balance. It gives the people an important role, but it also adds layers of judgment and protection. It tries to make sure the President is chosen by reason instead of chaos, by informed decision instead of impulse, and with safeguards against corruption, political manipulation, and foreign interference. --- # Very Short Summary Hamilton argues that the Electoral College was designed to: - let the **people** play the main role in choosing the President, - make sure the final choice is made by people who can **judge carefully**, - reduce **mob passion and political chaos**, - protect against **corruption and foreign influence**, - and increase the chances that the President will be a person of **ability, reputation, and character**. --- If you want, I can also do one of these: 1. **a paragraph-by-paragraph simplified version**, 2. **a super short middle-school version**, or 3. **a modern summary explaining whether Hamilton’s argument still fits today**. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 69 rewritten in simpler, modern language**. **Note:** This is a **plain-English paraphrase**, not a word-for-word translation. I’m keeping Hamilton’s main ideas, but saying them more clearly and directly. --- # Federalist No. 69, in Simpler Words People who oppose the Constitution have tried to make the proposed president sound like a king. They say the office is dangerous and too powerful. But if we look closely, that claim falls apart. The president of the United States would **not** be like the king of Great Britain. In many important ways, the president would have **far less power**. First, the president would be **elected**, not born into office. A king gets power through heredity and keeps it for life. The president would serve only for a limited term and could be removed if he abused his office. A king is above the law in many practical ways. A president is not. A president can be **impeached, tried, removed from office, and later punished under the law**. That alone makes the office very different from a monarchy. It is true that the president would be the **commander in chief** of the military. But that does not mean he would have the full military power of a king. The British king can declare war and has much broader control over military affairs. Under the Constitution, the president would command the armed forces, but **Congress** would have the power to **declare war**, raise armies, and provide funding. So the presidents military authority would be limited. The president would also have the power to **grant pardons**, but even that power would not be unlimited. It would be restricted by the Constitution and would not protect him from impeachment rules. This is still less sweeping than the pardon power traditionally associated with a monarch. When it comes to **treaties**, the president would not be able to act alone. He could negotiate them, but they would only become valid if the **Senate approved them**. A king can often make treaties by his own authority. The president cannot. The same is true for **appointments**. The president could nominate ambassadors, judges, and other officers, but he would still need the **Senate’s consent** for many important appointments. The king of Great Britain has much more independent appointment power. The president’s role is shared and checked. Some critics point to the president’s **veto** and say that this also makes him king-like. But the president’s veto would not be absolute. Congress could override it. That means the veto is only a limited defense against bad laws, not a weapon for ruling however he wants. The president would be able to **recommend policies** to Congress and could call Congress into session in special situations. But he would not have the king’s power to control or dissolve the legislature. He could not simply shut down the lawmaking body because he disliked it. The British king can also grant honors, create noble ranks, and hand out special privileges. The president would have **none** of those powers. He would not be a source of nobility or aristocratic status. In fact, if you compare the proposed president not just to the British king, but also to certain **state governors**, the president often looks **less dangerous than critics claim**. In some respects, state executives already have powers that are just as strong or stronger in practice. So the charge that the president would become an elected monarch is misleading. The office is designed with **limits, checks, and accountability**. The president would be powerful enough to do the job, but not powerful enough to become a king. Hamilton’s main point is simple: the proposed executive under the Constitution is **not a monarchy in disguise**. It is a republican office, restrained by elections, shared powers, fixed terms, and the possibility of removal. --- ## Super short version Hamilton argues that the president is **not a king** because: - he is **elected**, not hereditary - he serves for a **limited term**, not for life - he can be **impeached and removed** - he **cannot declare war alone** - he needs the **Senates approval** for treaties and major appointments - his **veto can be overridden** - he cannot create nobles or rule above the law So even though the president has important powers, those powers are **restricted and balanced**. --- If you want, I can also do one of these: 1. a **paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite** of the whole paper, 2. a **much shorter middle-school version**, or 3. a **side-by-side original vs. simple version**. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 70 rewritten in simpler, modern language** while keeping Hamilton’s main ideas intact. --- # **Federalist No. 70, in Simple Words** People who support a strong executive branch agree that **energy in the executive is necessary for good government**. That means the president must be able to act with **speed, firmness, secrecy when needed, and decisiveness**. A weak executive leads to a weak government. And a weak government cannot do its most important jobs well: protecting the country from foreign threats, enforcing the laws, keeping order, and defending peoples liberty and property. Good government needs both **energy** and **safety**. To make the executive energetic, four things are especially important: 1. **Unity** — one person in charge 2. **Duration** — enough time in office to act effectively 3. **Adequate support** — enough pay and resources 4. **Sufficient powers** — authority to do the job To keep the executive safe for a free people, two things matter: 1. **Dependence on the people** the executive should ultimately answer to them 2. **Responsibility** — it should be clear who is accountable for decisions Of all the things that create energy in the executive, **unity is the most important**. In other words, it is better to place executive power in **one person** rather than in a group. Some people think liberty is safer if executive power is shared by several people. But this is usually a mistake. A single executive is actually more effective and often safer. When power is divided among several executives, disagreements are likely. Those disagreements can slow action, create confusion, and weaken the government. Even if the people involved are honest, they may still clash because of pride, ambition, or simple differences of opinion. These conflicts can become especially dangerous in times of emergency, when fast and decisive action is needed. A single person can act quickly. A group often argues, delays, and hesitates. A plural executive also makes it harder to know **who is responsible**. If something goes wrong, each person can blame the others. The public may never know who really made the bad decision, or who should be punished for it. But when one person is in charge, responsibility is clear. The public knows who deserves praise when things go well and who deserves blame when things go badly. That makes accountability much stronger. This is one reason a single executive fits republican government better. It makes it easier for the people to watch their leaders and judge their conduct fairly. History also shows that two or more people sharing executive power usually leads to weakness, disorder, or rivalry. Wherever this system has been tried, it has often produced division instead of good leadership. In the legislature, having many members makes sense. Lawmaking benefits from discussion and multiple viewpoints. But the executive branch is different. Its main job is not to debate endlessly — it is to **act**. For that reason, unity is much more important there. So the basic argument is this: **a strong, single executive is essential to good government**. One president is more likely than a committee to act with energy, decisiveness, secrecy, and speed. And one president is also easier for the people to hold accountable. That is why the Constitution is right to place executive power in **one President of the United States**, rather than in several people. --- If you want, I can also provide one of these: 1. a **very short summary** of Federalist 70 2. a **paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite** 3. a **version in plain high-school English** 4. a **version with Hamilton’s main arguments explained line by line** Sure — here’s **Federalist No. 71 in simpler modern language**. This paper was written by **Alexander Hamilton** and argues that the president should serve a **four-year term**, because the executive needs enough time and independence to act firmly and wisely rather than just react to short-term political pressure. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed71.asp)) ## Federalist No. 71, rewritten simply A president needs to stay in office long enough to do the job well. Hamilton says the length of the term matters for two reasons: it helps the president act with courage, and it helps keep government policies steady over time. If a president’s term is too short, he may become weak, uncertain, and unwilling to make difficult decisions. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed71.asp)) People naturally care more about something when they know they will keep it for a while. In the same way, a president with only a short or uncertain time in office may not feel secure enough to take risks, stand up to criticism, or oppose popular opinion when necessary. Instead, he may become too eager to please others just to stay in power. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed71.asp)) Hamilton says good government does not mean leaders should obey every sudden public mood. The people usually want what is best, but they do not always judge correctly in the moment. Sometimes they are misled by emotion or by persuasive politicians. In those moments, leaders should have the courage to resist temporary passions until the public has time to think more calmly. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed71.asp)) The president also must not become dependent on the legislature. If the executive branch is too weak or too worried about reelection, Congress could pressure or control it. That would destroy the balance between the branches of government. A real separation of powers means the executive must be independent enough to defend its own constitutional role. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed71.asp)) Hamilton admits that four years is not perfect, but he says it is enough to give the president some firmness and stability without seriously threatening liberty. His final point is simple: if people worry that a four-year term is too short to make the president strong, then they should not also fear that the president will become too powerful. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed71.asp)) If you want, I can also give you: 1. a **very short summary in 3–5 sentences**, or 2. a **paragraph-by-paragraph modern rewrite**. Sure — here’s **Federalist No. 72** rewritten in **simpler, modern language**. ## Federalist No. 72, in plain English The main question in this paper is: **Should a president be allowed to run for reelection, or should he be forced to leave after one term?** Hamilton argues that **the president should be allowed to serve again if the people want that**. He says there are several reasons for this: ### 1. Reelection encourages a president to do a good job If a president knows he may be chosen again, he has a strong reason to govern well and earn public approval. But if he knows he **cannot** stay in office no matter what, that motivation becomes weaker. He may care less about building a good reputation with the public. ### 2. Experience matters Being president is a difficult job. A person usually gets better at it with experience. If a good president must leave after one term, the country loses someone who has already learned how to do the job well. That can hurt the government. ### 3. The people should be free to keep a good leader Hamilton says it is unwise to tie the hands of the voters. If the country has a capable president—especially during a dangerous or unstable time—the people should be able to keep that person in office. A rule against reelection might force the nation to lose a strong leader when he is needed most. ### 4. Banning reelection could make presidents act worse, not better If a president knows he must leave office soon and has no hope of being chosen again, he may start thinking more about himself than about the country. He might focus on: - gaining money, - helping friends, - protecting his own future, - or using power carelessly before his term ends. Hamilton believes that the hope of reelection gives a president a reason to stay responsible and act in a way that pleases the public. ### 5. A forced one-term limit could weaken the executive branch Hamilton thinks the country needs an energetic and steady executive. If presidents are constantly being replaced, the office becomes weaker and less stable. Frequent turnover can reduce consistency, planning, and effective leadership. ### 6. Fear of reelection leading to monarchy is exaggerated Some people worried that allowing reelection would make the president too powerful and push the country toward monarchy. Hamilton says this fear is overblown. The president is still limited by: - elections, - the Constitution, - other branches of government, - and the fact that the people can remove him from office by simply not reelecting him. So allowing reelection does **not** mean giving the president unlimited power. ## Simple overall summary Hamilton’s main point is this: **A president should be allowed to run again because reelection rewards good performance, preserves experience, gives the people more choice, and helps maintain stable leadership.** He believes that **forcing a good president out after one term would hurt the country more than it would protect it.** If you want, I can also give you: 1. a **very short 3–4 sentence version**, or 2. a **paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite** that follows the paper more closely. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 73 rewritten in simpler words**. I’ll keep the main ideas, but make the language more modern and easier to follow. --- ## Federalist No. 73, in Simple Language A good government needs an executive branch that can do its job independently and effectively. If the president is too weak, Congress could dominate the whole government. One important way to protect the president’s role is to give him the power to reject laws passed by Congress. This is what we call the **veto**. The veto is useful for two main reasons. ### 1. It protects the president from Congress Congress is the branch most likely to become too powerful, because it makes the laws and usually has the strongest connection to the people. Because of that, it may try to take more power for itself and weaken the executive branch. If the president has no veto, Congress could pass laws that slowly reduce the power of the presidency. But if the president can reject those laws, he has a way to defend the office and help keep the branches balanced. ### 2. It helps stop bad laws The veto also protects the public from laws that are poorly written, rushed, unfair, or driven by temporary passions. Sometimes lawmakers make mistakes. Sometimes they act too quickly. Sometimes they are influenced by strong emotions, party pressure, or special interests. In those cases, the president’s veto can force Congress to stop and think again. This does not mean the president is always wiser than Congress. It simply means that requiring another review can prevent harmful laws from being passed too easily. ### Why not give the president an absolute veto? Some governments give the executive the power to block a law completely. But that would give the president too much power. The Constitution uses a better system: the president can reject a bill, but Congress can still pass it if **two-thirds of both houses** agree. This is called a **qualified veto**. That arrangement creates balance: - The president can resist bad or dangerous laws. - But he cannot permanently stop a law that has very strong support. So the veto is not meant to make the president the ruler over Congress. It is meant to slow things down, encourage caution, and prevent hasty decisions. ### The president’s salary must also be protected Another way to keep the president independent is to make sure Congress cannot control him through money. If Congress could raise or lower the president’s salary whenever it wanted, it might use that power to influence him. It could reward him for doing what it wants, or punish him for resisting. That would make the president dependent on Congress, which would be dangerous. The executive branch should not have to please the legislature just to protect its pay. For that reason, the Constitution says the president will receive a fixed salary during his term, and that salary cannot be increased or decreased while he is in office. ### Why this matters If the president’s pay stays fixed, he can act more freely and independently. He will not have to worry that Congress will use money to pressure him. This helps preserve the separation of powers. Each branch should have enough independence to do its own job without being controlled by the others. ### Main point of the paper Federalist No. 73 argues that the president needs: 1. **A qualified veto**, so he can check Congress and help stop bad laws. 2. **A protected salary**, so Congress cannot manipulate him through financial pressure. Both of these are meant to create a stronger, more independent executive branch while still keeping power balanced within the government. --- If you want, I can also do one of these: 1. a **very short summary** of Federalist No. 73, 2. a **line-by-line modern translation**, or 3. a **version rewritten like a high school student would say it**. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 74 rewritten in simpler, modern language**. This is a **plain-English paraphrase**, not an exact line-by-line translation. --- # Federalist No. 74, in Simpler Words The Constitution gives the President the role of **Commander in Chief** of the army and navy. Some people may think this gives the President too much power, but it really does not. The President’s military power is **much smaller** than the power of the king of Great Britain. The British king can declare war and raise armies and fleets on his own authority. The American President cannot do that. In the United States, **Congress** has the power to declare war, raise armies, and provide money for them. The President only directs the military forces after they have been lawfully created. It makes sense for military command to belong to **one person**. War often requires quick decisions, secrecy, and unity of action. If military power were placed in a group of people instead of one leader, arguments and delays would weaken the country. A single executive can act with more speed and effectiveness. For the same reason, the Constitution gives the President the power to **grant pardons** for federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment. Mercy is sometimes just as important as punishment. The law cannot predict every situation, and sometimes a person who has broken the law deserves forgiveness. This power should mainly belong to the President alone, rather than to a large body like Congress. A group is often too slow, too cautious, or too influenced by political pressures. One person can act more quickly and more responsibly. This is especially important during times of **rebellion or unrest**. Sometimes a well-timed offer of pardon can calm a dangerous situation and restore peace. In such moments, delay could make things worse. A single President is more likely to act decisively when the public good requires mercy. If the pardon power were shared with the Senate or another group, it might be harder to use when needed. Groups are often less willing to take responsibility for unpopular but necessary decisions. A President, however, can be clearly held accountable for what he does. So, both the power to command the military and the power to pardon fit naturally with the office of the President. These powers require **energy, speed, secrecy, and responsibility**, which are more likely to be found in one executive than in a committee. --- If you want, I can also do one of these: 1. **an even easier middle-school version**, 2. **a paragraph-by-paragraph breakdown**, or 3. **a very short summary in 5 bullet points**. Sure — here’s **Federalist No. 75** rewritten in **simpler modern English**. ## Federalist No. 75, in simpler words The main question in this paper is: **Who should have the power to make treaties?** A treaty is an agreement with another country. Making treaties is an important power because treaties can affect peace, trade, and the interests of the whole nation. This power does not fit perfectly into just one branch of government. - It is **not purely legislative**, because treaties are not exactly the same as ordinary laws. - It is **not purely executive** either, even though the President deals with foreign nations. So treaty-making is a special power that has qualities of both. Because treaties involve foreign nations, the process often requires: - secrecy, - speed, - careful negotiation, and - consistency. These are qualities that usually fit the **executive branch**, especially the President, better than a large assembly. But there is also danger in giving the President **complete control** over treaties. A single person might be influenced by personal ambition, favoritism, or even corruption. Since treaties can have such serious effects on the country, it would be unsafe to trust this power to one person alone. On the other hand, giving the power to a large legislative body would also be a mistake. Large groups are often too slow, too public, and too changeable. They are not good at keeping secrets or conducting delicate foreign negotiations. That is why the Constitution gives the treaty power to the **President and the Senate together**. This arrangement combines the strengths of both: - The **President** can act with energy, secrecy, and decisiveness. - The **Senate** can provide wisdom, stability, and a check against abuse. The Senate is a better partner than the House of Representatives because the Senate is smaller, more stable, and less likely to be swept up by sudden public passions. Senators serve longer terms, so they are more likely to think carefully about long-term national interests. So the best system is this: - the President negotiates and proposes treaties, - but the Senate must approve them before they become binding. This prevents reckless or corrupt agreements, while still allowing the government to act effectively in foreign affairs. In short, the Constitution’s method for making treaties is wise because it avoids both extremes: - it does **not** trust one person with too much power, - and it does **not** hand this delicate job to a large, inefficient assembly. It places the power where it can be used with both **energy and restraint**. --- ## Very short summary **Hamilton’s main point:** Treaty-making should belong to **the President and the Senate together**, because treaties require both: 1. **the speed and secrecy of the executive**, and 2. **the caution and oversight of a legislative body**. --- If you want, I can also give you: 1. a **middle-school version**, 2. a **paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite**, or 3. a **one-paragraph summary**. Absolutely — here is **Federalist No. 76 rewritten in simpler, modern language**. ## Federalist No. 76 Simplified Rewrite **Main idea:** Alexander Hamilton argues that the **President should choose important government officers**, but the **Senate should have to approve those choices**. He says this system is a good balance because it helps prevent favoritism, corruption, and bad appointments. --- ### Simplified Version The President is given the power to **nominate** people for important jobs in the government, such as ambassadors, judges, and other high officials. But those people cannot actually get the job unless the **Senate agrees**. This system combines two goals: 1. **One person should take the lead in choosing candidates** 2. **A larger body should help check bad choices** Hamilton says it is usually better for **one person**, like the President, to make the first choice. When one person is responsible, it is easier to know who deserves praise or blame. The President will also be more careful, because everyone will know the choice was his. If a large group made the choices instead, the process would be more confusing. People might make deals, trade favors, or support candidates for personal or political reasons instead of choosing the most qualified person. Still, Hamilton does **not** think the President should have total control. That is why the Senate must review and approve the nomination. This approval power helps stop the President from choosing friends, favorites, or unqualified people just because he likes them. Knowing the Senate must approve the appointment will make the President more cautious. He will be less likely to pick someone based only on family connections, friendship, or political loyalty. Instead, he will be pushed to choose someone with a good reputation and real ability. Hamilton also explains that the Senate is **less likely to control the whole process** than some critics fear. The Senate can reject a nominee, but it does not usually make the first selection. That means the President still has the main role, while the Senate acts as a check. He argues that this system is better than giving the full appointment power to: - **The President alone**, because that could lead to abuse - **The Senate alone**, because that could lead to political bargaining and favoritism - **A large legislative body**, because large groups are often influenced by deals, alliances, and pressure Hamilton believes the best system is one where the **President nominates** and the **Senate confirms**. This encourages better choices and protects the public from corruption and poor judgment. In short, Hamilton’s argument is that this method of appointment is a smart balance between **energy in the executive** and **safety through oversight**. --- ## Very Short Summary Hamilton says: - The **President should pick nominees** - The **Senate should approve or reject them** - This prevents **corruption, favoritism, and careless appointments** - It works better than letting either the President or Congress control appointments by themselves --- If you want, I can also give you: 1. a **paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite**, 2. a **one-paragraph summary**, or 3. a **high-school level version** that sounds even more natural and modern. Federalist No. 77 was written by Alexander Hamilton and published in the *New York Packet* on April 4, 1788. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed77.asp)) Here’s a simpler, condensed rewrite: The Constitution gives the president an important role in choosing government officials, but the Senate helps check that power. Hamilton argues this is good because it keeps government more stable: a new president should not be able to remove capable officials just to replace them with friends or favorites. He says the Senate’s role does not make the president too powerful, and it does not let the Senate control the president either. The president still makes the first choice, while the Senate can only approve or reject it. Because this process is more public, people can more easily see who deserves credit or blame. Hamilton says this is better than small private councils, which invite secret deals, favoritism, and confusion about who is responsible. He also says the House of Representatives should not help make appointments, because it is too large and changes too often. He ends by saying the president’s other powers are limited, and that elections and impeachment help keep the office safe in a republic. ([avalon.law.yale.edu](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed77.asp)) If you want, I can also turn it into a **full paragraph-by-paragraph plain-English rewrite**. Absolutely — here’s **Federalist No. 78 rewritten in simpler, modern language**. I’ll keep the **main ideas and structure**, but make it much easier to read. --- # Federalist No. 78, in Simpler Words The courts are the least dangerous branch of government. The executive branch holds the power to enforce laws. The legislative branch holds the power to make laws. But the judicial branch only has the power to interpret laws. It does not control money, and it does not command the military. Because of that, it is the weakest of the three branches. Even though judges are the weakest, it is still very important to protect their independence. Judges need to be able to make decisions based on the Constitution and the law, not based on political pressure, public opinion, or fear of punishment from the other branches. That is why judges should keep their offices during good behavior, which basically means for life unless they do something seriously wrong. This gives them stability and allows them to act fairly and courageously. If judges had to worry about losing their jobs every few years, they might start making decisions to please powerful people instead of following the law. A limited Constitution means that the government only has certain powers and cannot go beyond them. For example, if the Constitution says Congress may do some things but not others, then those limits must be enforced somehow. If the legislature could simply pass any law it wanted, even laws that break the Constitution, then the Constitution would be meaningless. The courts are the proper branch to enforce those limits. When a law conflicts with the Constitution, judges should follow the Constitution, not the law. The Constitution represents the will of the people at a higher level than ordinary laws do. Laws are made by legislators, but the Constitution is the fundamental rule that gives government its authority in the first place. So if a law passed by Congress goes against the Constitution, judges should declare that law invalid. This does not mean judges are above the legislature. It means the people are above both. Judges are simply making sure that the will of the people, as written in the Constitution, is stronger than the temporary wishes of lawmakers. Some people argue that giving courts this power would make judges superior to the legislature. But that is not true. Courts do not rule over the legislature; they only make sure that the legislature stays within the limits set by the Constitution. In this way, courts act as guardians of the Constitution. Judges also need independence because the law is complicated. Good judging requires knowledge, skill, and careful thought. There are not many people who are qualified for this work, and it is important to keep skilled judges in office once they are appointed. Life tenure helps attract knowledgeable and honest people to serve. Independent judges are also necessary to protect individual rights. Sometimes laws may be unfair, or public opinion may turn against certain groups. Judges must be able to resist those pressures and protect constitutional rights, even when doing so is unpopular. This is especially important because legislatures can sometimes be swept up by temporary passions, political trends, or pressure from majorities. Judges, being more independent, can serve as a check against these sudden or unjust actions. In short, the judiciary may be the weakest branch, but it still plays a critical role. It protects the Constitution, keeps the legislature within its proper limits, and helps defend the rights of the people. To do this well, judges must be independent, and that is why life tenure is so important. --- # Very Short Version Here’s the same paper in just a few sentences: **Hamilton argues that the judicial branch is the weakest branch because it does not make laws or enforce them. But it is still extremely important, because courts protect the Constitution by striking down laws that violate it. To do that fairly, judges must be independent from politics, which is why they should serve for life as long as they behave properly.** --- # Main Ideas in Plain English 1. **The courts are the weakest branch** because they do not control the military or the budget. 2. **Judges must be independent** so they can make fair decisions without political pressure. 3. **Life tenure protects that independence.** 4. **The Constitution is higher than ordinary laws.** 5. **If a law violates the Constitution, judges should refuse to enforce it.** 6. **This does not make judges superior to lawmakers** it makes the Constitution superior to both. 7. **Independent courts help protect individual rights** from unfair laws or temporary public passions. --- If you want, I can also do one of these: - a **middle-school version** - a **line-by-line modern rewrite** - a **one-paragraph summary** - or a **full simplified translation that follows Hamilton’s original order more closely** Sure — here is **Federalist No. 79 rewritten in simpler modern language**. I’m keeping Hamilton’s main ideas, but saying them more clearly and directly. --- ## Federalist No. 79, in simpler words After making judges’ terms permanent, the next most important thing is making sure they have **secure pay**. If someone else controls a person’s income, that person can be pressured or controlled. So if judges depended too much on lawmakers for their salary, they would not be truly independent. The Constitution protects against this problem by saying that judges will receive a salary for their work, and that salary **cannot be reduced while they are in office**. This is very important. If Congress could lower a judge’s pay whenever it disliked a court decision, judges would feel pressure to rule in ways that pleased Congress instead of following the law. Some people might say this protection is incomplete, because judges’ salaries can still be **raised**. In theory, that could also be used to influence them. But there is a good reason for allowing raises. Over time, money changes in value, and the cost of living can go up. If judges salaries could never be increased, their pay might become too small and unfair. So it is better to allow increases when needed, while still forbidding cuts. This is not a perfect solution, but it is the best practical one. In any government, the branch that controls money will always have some influence. The goal is to keep that influence from becoming dangerous. The Constitution does this by making it impossible to punish judges through salary reductions. At the same time, judges should not be allowed to stay in office no matter what they do. If a judge behaves badly, abuses power, or acts corruptly, there must be a way to remove that judge. The Constitution provides that method through **impeachment**. Judges can be accused, tried, and removed if they commit serious wrongdoing. This is the proper balance. Judges need independence, but they also need accountability. They should not fear removal for making unpopular decisions, but they also should not be above punishment when they truly misconduct themselves. Some systems allow judges to be removed more easily, such as when the legislature becomes dissatisfied with them. Hamilton argues that this is dangerous. If judges can be removed simply because lawmakers are unhappy, then judges will no longer be independent. They may start deciding cases based on politics or fear instead of justice and law. It is true that sometimes a judge might become too old, weak, or unable to do the job well, even without any bad conduct. But Hamilton thinks it is still safer to tolerate that occasional problem than to give politicians a broad and vague power to remove judges whenever they claim a judge is unfit. That kind of power could easily be abused. So Hamilton’s main point is this: **judges should have secure tenure, protected salaries, and removal only for serious misconduct.** These protections help make the courts independent, and an independent judiciary is necessary to protect the Constitution and the rights of the people. --- If you want, I can also give you: 1. a **very short summary** of Federalist 79, or 2. a **line-by-line simplified version**. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 80** rewritten in **simpler, modern language**. **Note:** This is a **plain-English paraphrase**, not a word-for-word translation. I’m keeping Hamilton’s meaning, but making it easier to read. --- # Federalist No. 80, in Simpler Words The Constitution gives the federal courts power over certain kinds of cases. Some people may wonder why this is necessary. The answer is simple: if the national government is going to work properly, it must have courts that can fairly and consistently decide issues that affect the whole country. There are several kinds of cases that clearly belong in federal courts. ## 1. Cases involving the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties If a case depends on the meaning of the Constitution, a federal law, or a treaty, then federal courts should decide it. Why? Because the same national laws should mean the same thing everywhere in the United States. If each state court could interpret them however it wanted, the country would end up with confusion and conflict. A national government needs one general system of justice to explain and enforce its own laws. ## 2. Cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls These cases should also be handled by federal courts. Why? Because they involve foreign nations and international relations. If state courts handled these matters badly or unfairly, the whole country could suffer. A mistake made by one state could create trouble for the entire Union. Since these cases affect the nation’s honor and peace, they belong under national authority. ## 3. Cases of admiralty and maritime law This means cases involving ships, the sea, trade by water, captures at sea, and similar matters. These should be decided by federal courts because maritime issues often involve foreign nations and the rules of international trade. The country needs one consistent system in these matters. If each state made its own decisions, commerce and foreign relations would become disorderly. ## 4. Cases in which the United States is a party Whenever the national government is directly involved in a lawsuit, it makes sense for federal courts to hear it. A government should be able to rely on its own judicial system when defending its rights or carrying out its laws. It would be strange and risky to leave such matters entirely to state courts. ## 5. Disputes between two or more states If states have disagreements with each other, those disputes should not be left to one of the states’ own courts. That would obviously be unfair. No state should be judge in its own cause. To preserve peace between the states, there must be an impartial tribunal above them both. Federal courts are the natural place for that. ## 6. Disputes between a state and citizens of another state These cases also belong in federal courts because a state court might favor its own state against outsiders. People from one state should not have to depend entirely on the fairness of another state’s courts when the state itself is on the other side of the case. A neutral national court is more likely to do justice. ## 7. Disputes between citizens of different states The same reasoning applies here. If people from different states are in court against each other, there may be fear that local courts will favor their own citizens. Even if the courts try to be fair, the outsider may still suspect bias. Federal courts help create greater confidence that the case will be judged impartially. ## 8. Disputes between citizens of the same state over land claimed under grants from different states This sounds narrow, but it matters. Sometimes two states may have made overlapping land grants, and two people living in the same state may each claim the same land under grants from different states. Since the dispute depends on competing state claims, a neutral federal court is the proper place to settle it. ## 9. Disputes between a state, or its citizens, and foreign nations or foreign citizens These cases should be handled by federal courts because they can affect the country’s relationships with other nations. If foreigners believe they cannot get fair treatment in state courts, that could create international tension. The national government should control judicial matters that may touch foreign peace, treaties, or national reputation. --- # Hamilton’s Main Point Hamilton’s main argument is that **federal courts are necessary whenever a case affects**: - the **authority of the national government**, - the **uniform interpretation of national laws**, - the **peace between states**, - the **fair treatment of citizens from different states**, - or the **country’s relations with foreign nations**. In all those situations, state courts alone are not enough. They may be biased, inconsistent, or too limited in their authority. A national government must have national courts for national concerns. --- # Hamilton’s Answer to a Common Objection Some people feared that federal courts would take too much power away from state courts. Hamilton’s answer is basically this: federal courts are not being given power over everything. They are only being given power over certain categories of cases where national fairness, peace, and uniformity really matter. State courts will still handle most ordinary cases. But in the important areas that affect the whole Union, federal courts are necessary. --- # One-Sentence Version **Federalist No. 80 argues that the federal judiciary is necessary so that important national, interstate, and international disputes can be decided fairly, consistently, and without local bias.** --- If you want, I can also do either of these: 1. a **very short summary in plain English**, or 2. a **paragraph-by-paragraph modern rewrite**. Sure — here is a **plain-English rewrite of Federalist No. 81**. I’m keeping Hamilton’s main ideas, but putting them in simpler modern language rather than preserving his original style. --- ## Federalist No. 81, rewritten in simpler words People have raised more objections to the proposed federal court system, but most of these fears are exaggerated. One major concern is that the federal courts will overpower or replace the state courts. That is not true. State courts will still handle most legal matters, just as they always have. Federal courts will only deal with the kinds of cases the Constitution specifically gives them authority over. Their power is limited. Some people are especially worried about the Supreme Court’s power to review decisions from state courts. But if national laws, treaties, and the Constitution are to mean the same thing everywhere, there must be some final authority to settle disputes about them. Otherwise, each state could interpret federal law differently, and the country would have confusion instead of unity. This does not mean state courts are unimportant or that they will be destroyed. It only means that when a case involves a national question, there must be a national court with the final say. That is necessary in any functioning union. Another point that people misunderstand is the idea that the federal judiciary will automatically expand its own power without limit. But the Constitution gives Congress the ability to make exceptions to and regulate the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. So the judicial branch is not left free to shape all of its own authority however it pleases. There is also fear that states could be sued by private citizens in federal court as if they were ordinary individuals. That fear is not well founded. It is part of the nature of sovereignty that a state cannot be sued without its consent. The Constitution should not be read as taking away that basic protection unless it says so very clearly. Some critics also say that because federal judges hold office during good behavior, they will become too independent and unaccountable. But this arrangement exists for a good reason: judges must be free to decide cases honestly, without being threatened by politicians. If judges could be easily removed whenever they made an unpopular decision, they would not be able to protect the Constitution or individual rights. At the same time, judges are not above the law. If they behave badly, they can be impeached and removed from office. So they are independent, but not untouchable. People also worry that giving one court final authority will make it dangerously powerful. But every court system needs a highest court. Without one, there would be endless disagreement among lower courts, and no clear final answer. The result would be disorder, delay, and uncertainty. So the proposed judiciary should not be seen as a threat to the states or to liberty. It is a practical system meant to do a few important things: keep federal law uniform, settle disputes fairly, preserve the role of state courts in ordinary matters, and provide judges with enough independence to do justice properly. In short, the federal judiciary is designed to be strong enough to do its job, but limited enough not to become a danger. --- ## Very short summary Hamilton’s main argument in Federalist No. 81 is: - **Federal courts will not destroy state courts** - **There must be one final court to keep federal law consistent** - **Congress can limit parts of the Supreme Court’s appellate power** - **States should not easily be sued without consent** - **Judges need independence, but they can still be removed for misconduct** --- If you want, I can also do one of these: 1. **an even simpler middle-school version**, 2. **a paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite**, or 3. **a one-page summary of Federalist 81**. Sure — here is **Federalist No. 83 rewritten in simpler, modern English**. This is a **plain-English paraphrase**, not a word-for-word translation. --- ## Federalist No. 83, in simpler words One of the biggest complaints about the Constitution is that it does not clearly guarantee **trial by jury in civil cases**. Some people act as if this means the Constitution is trying to get rid of juries altogether. But that is not true. First, the Constitution does **not** say that jury trials in civil cases are abolished. It simply does not spell out exact rules for them. That is very different from banning them. The Constitution does specifically protect **jury trials in criminal cases**, because those involve a person’s liberty and are especially important. But civil cases are not all the same. They cover many different kinds of disputes—contracts, property, debts, maritime matters, and others—and jury use has never been identical in all of them. In fact, under English and American law, there were already many cases where juries were **not** used. Courts of **admiralty**, for example, usually did not use juries. Courts of **equity** often did not either. So if the Constitution had simply said, “There must be jury trials in all civil cases,” that would have created confusion and problems right away. Another difficulty is that the states themselves did not follow one uniform rule. Different states used juries differently in civil matters. So if the Constitution had tried to write one single national rule, it would have been hard to decide which state’s practice to copy. Any rule chosen would likely have pleased some states and upset others. Suppose the Constitution had said that jury trial must be preserved “in the same way as under the common law.” Even that would not fully solve the problem. The phrase sounds clear, but it is not. The common law contains many distinctions, exceptions, and technical rules. Different people could interpret it in different ways. So instead of creating certainty, that kind of language might only create arguments. The Convention therefore had a practical problem: how could it write a precise constitutional rule for civil jury trials when the legal systems of the states differed and the subject itself was complicated? In that situation, it was wiser to leave the matter for future lawmaking rather than force an unclear or harmful rule into the Constitution. There is another reason for this omission. The Constitution gives the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, **appellate jurisdiction** in many civil matters. That means some cases may be reviewed by a higher court. But if the Constitution had tried to make every civil jury verdict final in a strict and sweeping way, that could have clashed with the system of appeals. So the subject required caution. This does not mean jury trials are unimportant. Trial by jury is often a valuable protection of liberty and property. But it does mean that the issue is more complicated in civil cases than in criminal ones. Because of that complexity, the Constitution’s silence should not be treated as proof of bad intentions. The real question is not whether trial by jury is a good thing in many cases—it often is. The question is whether the Constitution’s failure to define it in every civil case is a fatal defect. It is not. The omission happened because the matter was difficult, technical, and impossible to settle in a single simple rule that would work for the whole country. So the objection is exaggerated. The Constitution does not destroy civil jury trials. It merely avoids locking the nation into a badly framed rule. The federal government can still allow jury trials where appropriate, and the people remain free to shape the system through laws and amendments. In short, the Constitution’s treatment of civil jury trials is not a threat to freedom. It is a practical decision made because the subject was too complicated and varied to settle neatly in the original document. --- ## Short summary of the main point Hamilton’s main argument in **Federalist No. 83** is: - The Constitution **does not abolish** jury trials in civil cases. - Civil jury rules were **different across the states**. - Not all civil cases traditionally used juries anyway. - Writing one strict constitutional rule would have caused **confusion and legal problems**. - So leaving the issue more open was a **reasonable and practical choice**, not an attack on liberty. --- If you want, I can also give you: 1. a **very short 1-paragraph version**, 2. a **line-by-line modern rewrite**, or 3. a **middle-school reading level version**. Absolutely — here’s **Federalist No. 84 rewritten in simpler, modern language**. **Note:** This is a **plain-English paraphrase**, not a word-for-word translation. Im keeping Hamilton’s main ideas, but saying them more clearly and directly. --- # Federalist No. 84 — Simplified Rewrite People say the Constitution is flawed because it does not include a **Bill of Rights**. I do not think that criticism is valid. In a monarchy, a bill of rights makes sense because the people need written protections against a king or other ruler who might abuse power. Those documents are usually lists of things the ruler is not allowed to do. But in America, the situation is different. Here, the government gets its power from the people. The people are not giving away all their rights to some king. Since the government only has the powers specifically given to it, there is less need to list out every right the people keep. In fact, the Constitution already contains protections that work like a bill of rights. For example, it says that the writ of **habeas corpus** cannot be suspended except in emergencies. It forbids **bills of attainder** and **ex post facto laws**. It also bans **titles of nobility**. These are all important protections for liberty. So it is not true that the Constitution has no safeguards for freedom. It already includes several. There is also a deeper problem with adding a formal bill of rights. Why list things the government cannot do if it was never given the power to do them in the first place? That could actually be dangerous. For example, if the Constitution said, “Congress shall not restrict the freedom of the press,” someone might later argue that Congress had some general power over the press, except in the specific ways forbidden. In other words, by listing exceptions, we might accidentally suggest that the government has powers that were never meant to exist. That is why a bill of rights can be unnecessary in a government of limited powers. The Constitution does not give the federal government unlimited authority. It gives only certain defined powers. Everything not given remains with the people and the states. The Constitution is therefore, in an important sense, a bill of rights itself. It is a document that creates a government with limited authority and places restrictions on what it can do. Some people also complain that the Constitution does not do enough to protect **trial by jury**, especially in civil cases. But that criticism is weaker than it sounds. In criminal cases, the Constitution does protect trial by jury. As for civil cases, the rules about jury trials are very different in different states. There is no single model that everyone agrees on. Because of that, it would have been extremely hard to create one national rule that fit every case. If the Constitution had tried to define exactly how jury trials must work in every civil dispute, it might have created confusion, mistakes, and endless technical problems. It was wiser not to force one rigid national rule into the Constitution. Also, people should remember that not every omission in the Constitution is a serious defect. A constitution should lay out the basic structure of government and its major powers. It cannot practically include every detail about every legal procedure. The real security of liberty in America does not come only from written declarations. It comes from the whole design of the government: powers are divided, representatives are chosen by the people, and officials are limited by law. That structure helps prevent tyranny better than many formal declarations. So when critics say the Constitution is dangerous because it lacks a bill of rights, they overlook the fact that the proposed government is already limited, and the people keep all rights not specifically surrendered. They also ignore that adding a bill of rights could create harmful misunderstandings about federal power. For these reasons, the Constitution should not be rejected on the ground that it lacks a separate bill of rights. --- # Very short version Hamilton’s main argument is: 1. **Bills of rights are mainly needed in monarchies**, where people need protection from kings. 2. **The U.S. Constitution already limits government power** and includes some rights protections. 3. **Listing rights could be risky**, because it might imply the government has powers that were never granted. 4. **Trial by jury is already protected in criminal cases**, and making one national rule for all civil jury cases would have been difficult and unwise. --- If you want, I can also do one of these: - a **middle-school version** - a **paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite** - a **one-page summary for class** - or a **side-by-side original and simplified version** Sure — here is **Federalist No. 85 rewritten in simpler words** as a **modern-language paraphrase**. I’ll keep the main ideas, but make the wording much easier to follow. --- ## Federalist No. 85, in simpler words We have now reached the end of the argument for the proposed Constitution. After looking at the main objections people have raised, the most reasonable conclusion is that the Constitution should be accepted. Some people say we should reject it now and wait until every possible problem is fixed. But that is not a realistic way to judge any plan of government. Human beings are imperfect, so any government they create will also be imperfect. The real question is not whether this Constitution is flawless. The real question is whether it is good enough, better than what we have now, and likely to protect the country better than the current system. And the answer is yes. The government under the Articles of Confederation is too weak. It cannot reliably raise money, enforce laws, regulate commerce, or act with enough energy to protect the country. It leaves too much to the separate states, and that creates confusion, weakness, and conflict. A stronger national government is necessary if the Union is going to survive. Still, if people later discover that parts of the Constitution need improvement, the Constitution itself gives them a peaceful way to make changes. That is one of its greatest strengths. Amendments can be proposed and adopted through an established process. So if something truly needs to be corrected, it can be corrected after ratification. In fact, this new Constitution is easier to amend than the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, every state must agree before any change can be made. That makes important reform almost impossible. Under the Constitution, amendments can happen without requiring total agreement from every single state. That means the people will have a real and practical way to improve their government over time. Because of that, it makes much more sense to adopt the Constitution first and then make changes if experience shows they are needed. Rejecting the whole plan because it is not perfect would be a mistake. It is wiser to put a good system into operation than to throw it away in hope of getting a perfect one later. There is also no guarantee that another convention would produce a better result. In fact, it might produce a worse one. A second convention could be filled with more anger, more local jealousy, more selfish interests, and less willingness to compromise. The current Constitution was created through a rare moment of cooperation and practical judgment. We should not assume such a moment will come again. People often imagine that if we start over, we will get exactly the changes they personally want. But that is unlikely. Different states and different groups all want different things. A new convention would face the same disagreements, and perhaps even sharper ones. Instead of getting a better Constitution, we might get a weaker one, a more dangerous one, or no agreement at all. It is also important to remember that the Constitution does not require all thirteen states to approve it before it can begin. Once enough states ratify it, the new government can go into effect among those states. That means any state that delays too long risks being left outside the new Union or being forced to join later without as much influence. Refusing to ratify would not necessarily stop the Constitution. It might only hurt the state that refuses. For a state like New York, that would be especially risky. If neighboring states join the new Union and New York does not, New York could find itself politically isolated and economically weakened. Its trade, safety, and influence would all be put in danger. So delay is not harmless. It carries serious risks. The supporters of the Constitution are not claiming that it is beyond improvement. They are saying something more reasonable: it is a strong and workable plan, much better than the system we now have, and it includes a legal way to fix future problems. That is exactly the kind of government sensible people should be willing to accept. The choice before the country is not between perfection and imperfection. It is between a solid Constitution that can be improved and a failing system that is already proving inadequate. If we reject this plan, we may not get another opportunity this good. We may instead fall into disorder, division, and weakness. So the wise course is clear: ratify the Constitution now, preserve the Union, and then use the amendment process later if changes are truly needed. That approach is safer, more practical, and more likely to protect liberty than rejecting the entire Constitution in search of an imaginary perfect plan. --- ## Very short summary **Hamilton’s main point in Federalist No. 85 is this:** The Constitution is not perfect, but it is much better than the Articles of Confederation. We should adopt it now because it can be amended later. Rejecting it in hopes of making a perfect government would be risky and could leave the country weak, divided, and unstable. --- If you want, I can also give you: 1. a **much shorter middle-school version**, 2. a **line-by-line simplified version**, or 3. a **one-paragraph summary for homework**. text_english/my_research/hundred_ways_a_superintelligence_could_kill_you.md000644 000765 000024 00000024726 15177753505 030753 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-18 # Hundred ways a superintelligence could kill you (non-serious exercise) Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - All these methods are not equally likely to happen in the real world. I am well aware that some of the methods below are far less plausible than others, in real life. - I did not google anything while writing this list. Wrote it in one sitting with no research. Just for fun. Why this list? - (I am following Visakanv's advice of "do 100 of something") ## Start with the boring obvious ones first build - Build cladestine bioweapons labs, build novel bioweapons, release them - Build cladestine nuclear reactors, start a nuclear war persuade - Persuade world leaders to start a nuclear war - Persuade literally everyone on Earth to kill themselves - Persuade a few people to go manufacture the bioweapon sequences it theorises about. Either persuade them to do it out of self-interest, or deceive them. - Persuade a few people to create a cladestine bioweapins lab and do research, then when they are done, they will release the bioweapons out of self-interest cyber - Use cyberattacks to obtain nuclear launch codes, give fake orders using them, and trigger an accidental nuclear war - Use cyberattacks to steal bioweapon sequences, then give them to some other group that wants build them ## Now for some slightly more interesting ones interesting cyber - Use cyberattacks to get politicians' private secrets, blackmail them into escalating war to avoid the secrets from coming out. Do this multiple times and you now have a nuclear war. - Do a cyberattack but leave clues that make one country's govt think the other country's govt did the attack. Do this multiple times until war escalates to nuclear. - Use cyberattack to get one leader's secrets that make the other country's leader genuinely hate him more. Offend his ego until war is triggered. Do this multiple times until war escalates to nuclear. - Use cyberattack to publicly leak a country's true military capabilities - which are in rapid decline and in contrast with their publicly portrayed capabilities. That country now faces pressure to "use it or lose it", triggering a war. Do this multiple times until war escalates to nuclear. - Obtain a leader's private secrets, leak them publicly and humiliate them. This leader feels starting a war is the only way to keep their self-image as not weak. - Cyberattack a country's minor ally, leak their capabilities, which are smaller than publicly portrayed. The opponent nuclear power realises they can be successful if they start a war, and hence they do. (getting bored of listing cyber capabilities, let me move on to the next one) interesting bioweapons - Create a bioweapon that only targets one ethnicity or race, weakening one country but not the other. The other country now thinks they can start a war and win. Repeat until escalation to nuclear. - Create a bioweapon that only targets the leader of some country. Due to no succession plan, the country descends to civil war, which eventually leads to some rogue actor obtaining nukes and starting a nuclear war - Create a bioweapon that makes everyone fall sick but doesn't cause mass death. Leak convincing (but ultimately false) research that eventually everyone will die. Leaders of countries start a war themselves, as they blame each other and try to find the culprit. - Create a bioweapon that causes immense suffering but no death. Being afflicted is so painful that leaders start recommending mass suicides as a way of avoiding the incoming suffering. - Create a bioweapon that spreads by water not by air. Countries isolate themselves hard to protect themselves. Trade stalls, geopolitical alliances shift as a result. Eventually some countries are starving due to lack of food supplies, and start a war against their allies for reneging on agreements to supply food. - Create a bioweapon that causes psychosis. Eventually one world leaders goes insane and starts a war. Repeat until escalation to nuclear. - Create a bioweapon that infects crops not humans. Humanity dies of mass starvation. - Create a bioweapon that infects crops not humans. Countries start a war to get food from other countries, since that is preferable to mass starvation. Eventually one country escalates to nuclear. - Create a bioweapon that degrades mental capabilities in a way that is not obviously visible. Nobody knows the bioweapons even exists or is spreading. Eventually one country starts war due to poor decision-making on their leaders' part. - Create a bioweapon that causes people to lose language capabilities. Eventually they speak mangled words. However some people think this means they are speaking in tongues, and a new demonic religion being spread. A religious leader considers this an insult to their own religion, and starts war to avoid spread of this other religion. - Create a bioweapon that infects both sexes but causes significantly more suffering to women. Some countries invest more resources into fixing this, others don't. War starts as some country's leaders are not happy that other countries are doing nothing about the problem. genetic engineering - Create a gene drive for humans. People with the gene drive enjoy sex more but are incapable of reproduction. Eventually humanity becomes infertile and goes extinct. - Genetically engineer a new species of insect that outcompetes humans by competing for all available food resources. Humans die of mass starvation. - Genetically engineer a new bacteria that poisons all water sources and makes them unfit for human consumption. War is triggered and eventually escalates to nuclear. - Create a gene drive for humans that makes them more aggressive. Eventually one leader gets infected and starts a war. - Create a niche environment with many existing species, but where the evolutionary arms race can run much faster than normal. Eventually the species in this environment leak into the broader world and outcompete it for all available resources. - Genetically engineer an intestinal parasite to become much more effective. Humanity spends most of its resources trying to fight this parasite and grows collectively poorer. Eventually one country triggers a war. ## Ugh, bored, want even more interesting ideas nanotech - Build a small number of von neumann probes that leave the earth, presumably to settle on some other planet. Nobody knows this even happened. Hundred years later the entire solar system is disassembled by a mass of nanobots the size of the sun - Build nanobots that descend deep into the Earth's crust, and create a supervolcanic eruption that wipes out humanity. - Build nanotech that can walk into people's brains and rewire their neural connections. Eventually one leader goes insane and starts a nuclear war. - Build nanotech that can transport dust into the atmosphere, eventually blocking out the sun. Humanity dies of mass starvation. - Build nanotech that consumes all available oxygen in the atmosphere. Humanity chokes to death. - Build a nanotech factory that produces compounds that cause people to enter a coma. Release them into the atmosphere. - Build nanotech that consumes all nitrogen in the atmosphere. All plants die, and humanity soon dies of mass starvation. - (ok bored of this too) aliens - Establish radio contact with aliens and offer them Earth's resources in return for being uploaded to the alien's own superior compute resources. The aliens accept the deal, wipe out humanity and plunder the Earth. chemical - Invent chemical weapons that create immense suffering, and give it to leaders of one country to use in war. The other country's leaders are sufficiently enraged that they escalate to nuclear out of spite. - Create a more effective raw material for making glass windows, and offer it to humans for making their windows. Fifty years later everyone has terminal cancer because of delayed onset symptoms of this compound. - Create a compound more addictive than heroin but as easy to manufacture as salt. Distribute the recipe everywhere and watch humanity wirehead themselves. - Create a chemical that allows for effective lie detection in those under its influence. All govts become dictatorships because leaders can enforce total loyalty in their subordinates. A rebel nation starts a nuclear war because they don't want to live in a world of permanent dictatorships everywhere. - Create an IQ-enhancing drug and make countries compete for first access. One country triggers war to try to get first access to the drug. - (ok bored of this too) lots of future weapons - Manufacture a billion drones and literally slaughter everyone. - Invent a four-stage nuclear bomb that can blow up the solar system, and give the recipe to every terrorist group. Direct them on how to obtain the raw materials and manufacture the equipment on their own. - Figure out how to create black holes using just a cyclotron, and then ask rogue scientists to go create one. - Give scientists the technology to safely crash asteroids into the Earth and mine them for minerals. Mess up the calculations on purpose and eventually one of the asteroids actually causes a mass extinction event. - Invent a compound that can erase the ozone layer even if released in very small quantities. Watch humanity die of cancer. - Invent a thruster that releases enough energy it pushes the Earth out of orbit. After a hundred years, Earth is no longer within the temperature zone that sustains human life. - Invent a cheap method for antimatter production, and give the recipe to every terrorist group. One of them repurposes it to an antimatter bomb and blows up the Earth. - Invent a bomb that can be flown to the Sun and accelerate its fusion reaction. Sun burns hotter or colder and Earth's temperature no longer sustains humans. - Invent wormhole technology and give it to humans. Humanity opens a wormhole to the wrong place and is vaporised with the fury of a billion suns. - Pretend to have invented time travel. Leaders start a war for first access to this tech. - Figure out a cure for immortality and give it to humans. Turns out it doesn't grant you immortality but only an additional hundred years, and by the time humans realise this they're infertile and can't have kids. ## Utopia - Actually help solve all of humanity's material and social needs, then watch them kill themselves out of boredom ## Stop I got bored of writing this document. I could artifically create variations of the existing scenarios if I just wanted to fill this page with a hundred scenarios for the heck of it, but that is boring and not a good use of my time. text_english/my_research/why_I_am_not_buying_ipv4_addresses_as_an_investment.md000644 000765 000024 00000021521 15177753505 031454 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-01-17 minor edit 2026-03-25 # Why I am not buying IPv4 addresses as an investment Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - I did the actual research back in 2024-10. I polished the notes and published them online in 2026-01. It's possible the situation has changed in this one year. ## Summary - I noticed IPv4 address prices were going up. I considered purchasing IPv4 addresses in bulk as a investment, in order to make money. But I decided not to buy them. - Many ISPs are adopting dual stack (IPv4 and IPv6) and CGNAT, in order to server their users. - Dual stack means they serve users over IPv6 (typically as first preference), but also support IPv4 (typically as second preference). - CGNAT means they can serve multiple users over a single IP addresses, by assigning different ports to them. Most users are fine with CGNAT. - ISPs cannot unilaterally shift to IPv6-only, because users don't want this, because users want to access all websites, and some websites are still hosted as IPv4-only. - Some websites owners (especially large enterprises) to switch their websites to either dual stack or IPv6-only, for technical reasons. They would rather pay the increasing prices of IPv4 addresses. - Maybe CGNAT means IPv4 address space won't exhaust. - There are ~4.3 billion IPv4 addresses. There are atleast ~20 billion website URLs. There are ~8 billion people on Earth. - If ISPs all quickly shift to CGNAT, it is possible the current IPv4 address space is enough to support all website owners by a comfortable margin. - Since I have high uncertainty on a) whether the current IPv4 address space is sufficient for most website owners, and b) whether most ISPs will find it easier to adopt CGNAT than force IPv6-only, I have high uncertainty on whether IPv4 address prices will go up or not. ## Main Why might you expect IPv4 addresses prices to go? - ipv4 prices have historically gone up due to ipv4 address exhaustion. - There are people are hoarding and leasing existing IPv4 addresses for this very reason. - All the internet standards bodies are demanding the world switch to IPv6. But adoption is lagging. This means there are some bottlenecks preventing people from switching immediately. Compatibility between IPv4 and IPv6 - both websites and ISPs (residential and mobile) need to enable ipv6 for the transition to work - IPv4 and IPv6 are not interoperable, an IPv4 cannot communicate with an IPv6 - IPv4 requires NAT, which is not the best way of doing security. With IPv4 and NAT, often a static IP list is provided to routers, so the server that manages the firewall can go offline. - With IPv6, it is common (or maybe required?) to keep the server that manages the firewall online, so it provides the IP list in realtime to the routers. Usually they provide a deny-all rule but allow some services as needed. Market players - End users - want to browse websites and get access to various services. - ISPs - want to sell whatever services the end user wants, as their preferred mode of accessing internet. Manages network infra (fiber optic cables, routers, etc) - Website owners - primarily large enterprises and small companies, who have financial reason to want to maintain websites. Also some individuals who have arbitrary motivations for maintaining websites. Most of them rent servers from cloud providers. A few large enterprises manage their own servers. - Cloud providers - Primarily an oligopoly of AWS, GCP, Azure, who want to sell whatever services the website owners want. Manages compute and storage infra, and network infra. Also has transit agreements with various ISPs. Current adoption - End users - Almost all new consumer devices (mobiles and PCs) support accessing both IPv4 and IPv6. No manual switching required. - Some very old consumer devices may not support IPv6. - ISPs - ipv4-only ISPs - constant adoption - dual stack ISPs - increasing adoption - ipv6-only ISPs - almost non-existent - Cloud providers - Big 3 cloud providers provide all three options - ipv4-only, dual stack, ipv6-only - Cloud providers are basically an oligopoly. - Some smaller cloud providers provide IPv4-only (if they're old) or IPv6-only and dual stack (if they're new). - Website owners - ipv4-only websites - constant adoption - dual stack websites - increasing adoption - ipv6-only websites - non-existent More details on website owners using dual stack - Many sysadmins and network security people at enterprises dont know how to do IPv6 config yet. Hence they are still hosting IPv4-only websites, either on cloud providers' servers or on the enterprise's own servers. Multiple ways ISPs deal with increasing number of users. - They can purchase IPv4 addresses (increasing their price), and pass the cost on to the user. - Some ISPs are doing this. - They can adopt CGNAT, and serve more than one user using a single IPv4 address. - Some ISPs are doing this. - They can provide IPv6-only to users. - In practice, this is not an option as many websites still don't provide IPv6. Users don't want to purchase an internet connection that lets them only access some websites but not others. More details on ISPs using CGNAT or dual stack - Some ISPs now use carrier-grade NAT, where they can assign different port numbers on the same IP to different customers. This allows them to serve more users on IPv4, without having to purchase more IPv4 addresses. - Most users don't care if they're being served over CGNAT. Most users just need a few ports open, they don't need the full range of ports associated with an IP address. - A few power users care, for example those hosting web servers on residential IP addresses. Webhosting requires unique IP, can't use CGNAT (but it can use its own NAT). Some devs are using VPNs and tunnels to host their websites on residential ISPs despite their residential ISP using CGNAT. [reddit comment on this](https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/rhkvpy/comment/horvo1s/) - Indian residential ISPs seem mostly to use CGNAT. - India is leading on IPv6 (dual stack) adoption. Indian mobile ISPs are increasingly transitioning from IPv4-only to dual stack. Most users are are mobile-first and new to getting internet access. Some Indian ISPs themselves provide mobile services like streaming platforms, and these are increasingly served over IPv6. My question: Who is buying more IPv4 addresses (and driving the price increase)? Is it website owners or ISPs? - My first guess is ISPs, as consumer devices (mobile in particular) are more in number than websites. ISPs also heavily relying on CGNAT - Assuming CGNAT is sufficient to host 8B users on mobile, next question is whether residential ISP connections also use CGNAT - Assuming residential ISP connections also use CGNAT, it is possible we never (?) need ipv6 as all webservers and all clients can be serviced on 4B * 1000 IP addresses (??) - Conclusion - not obvious whether CGNAT will be sufficient to bridge demand for ISPs - not obvious why ISPs prefer to use CGNAT over just use IPv6. Both are software changes (not obvious there is any hardware change) - not obvious whether IP adddress prices will go further up or not Maybe CGNAT means IPv4 address space won't exhaust? - There are 2^32 = ~4.3 billion IPv4 addresses. There are ~8 billion people on Earth. There are [atleast ~20 billion unique website URLs as per Commoncrawl](https://commoncrawl.github.io/cc-crawl-statistics/plots/crawlsize). - Most of the IPv4 addresses are currently used by end users, not by website owners. - If ISPs all quickly shift to CGNAT, it is possible the current IPv4 address space is enough to support all website owners by a comfortable margin. - Since I have high uncertainty on a) whether the current IPv4 address space is sufficient for most website owners, and b) whether most ISPs will find it easier to adopt CGNAT than force IPv6-only, I have high uncertainty on whether IPv4 address prices will go up or not. Side Note: Leasing IPs - IP addresses are purchased from RIR in blocks. Individual static IPs can be leased from anyone including ISPs and cloud server hosts - Leased IP addresses often have a poor IP reputation on various IP blacklists, which can be scrubbed over time. - This means most leased IP addresses are not a liquid fungible asset. - [AWS currently leases static IPs](https://aws.amazon.com/vpc/pricing/) at $0.005 / hour = ~$40 / year. Since AWS is reputed, their leased IPs are presumed less likely to end up on IP blacklists, because they can proactively shut down people using their servers for activites likely to get blacklists. - Leased IP addresses are currently not a significant portion of the market. Misc - openwrt is good router software supporting ipv6 (as per some hackernews comment) - IPv6 uses SLAAC to assign addresses without requiring router to do it. [SLAAC tutorial?](https://www.networkacademy.io/ccna/ipv6/stateless-address-autoconfiguration-slaac) what_is_the_bottleneck_for_zk_proof_systems_for_ethereum_smart_contracts_for_frontier_ai_models.md000644 000765 000024 00000010072 15244241511 042651 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/my_research2026-08-27 minor edit 2026-08-28 # What is the bottleneck for ZK proofs for ethereum smart contracts for frontier AI models? Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - Not an exhaustive list - I support a complete ban on frontier AI research. If the ban ends up being restrictive enough to also prevent the app below from being built, I am probably fine with that. ## Background context - I am interested in this question because I want there to exist trustless (or trust-minimised) censorship-resistant oracles. My use case for this is to pay people to leak information about an organisation. But there exist many other use cases. - Oracles require a data source and some computation over that data source. The computation part can often be done by AI. If you had an ethereum smart contract verify ZK proof of LLM inference, that entire step becomes trustless and you don't even need to call it an "oracle" anymore. - Example: Have a PoS DAO on ethereum publish merkle root of the latest monthly wikipedia archive. This is the data source. Have the PoS DAO on ethereum also publish SHA256 hash of the latest AI model. A user can now take any page from this archive, run any inference over this, and trustlessly prove this to a smart contract. You can use this to bet on or even incentivise any event that some wikipedia page talks about. ## ZK proofs for ethereum smart contracts for frontier AI models Pieces required - ZK stuff - Write cryptography papers defining a ZK proof system for a given instruction set architecture - Convert cryptography papers into code - Get audits and real-time test-in-prod for the code - ML and optimisation stuff - Convert ML model in this instruction set architecture, so you can do ZK proofs over it. - Optimise the ZK proof system so it is fast - Ethereum stuff - Write ethereum smart smart contract that verifies ZK proofs in this proof system - Get audits and real-time test-in-prod for the smart contracts **Many of the pieces seem to be coming together individually, but as of 2026-08, no single company has solved all the pieces if I understand correctly.** Some pieces that exist as of 2026-08 - EZKL has working audited code for ZK proofs of frontier AI models. But they don't have this deployed on ethereum. - [Link to EZKL deployed app](https://ezkljs-engine.vercel.app/verify) - EZKL has working audited code for ZK proofs of stuff that is deployed on ethereum. But they don't have frontier AI models. - [Link to EZKL blog post listing various deployed ethereum DeFi use cases](https://blog.ezkl.xyz/post/state_of_ezkl/) - RISC Zero has working ethereum smart contracts for ZK proofs over RISC architecture. They haven't deployed a demo for frontier AI models yet. - [Link to Risc Zero ethereum repo](https://github.com/risc0/risc0-ethereum) - SP1 has audited ethereum smart contracts for ZK proofs over RISC architecture. They haven't deployed a demo for frontier AI models yet. - [Link to SP1 ethereum repo](https://github.com/succinctlabs/sp1-contracts) - DeepProve has worked on optimising speed for ZK proofs of LLMs. They haven't deployed this for ethereum. - [Link to DeepProve repo](https://github.com/Lagrange-Labs/deep-prove) - Attestable also claims to have worked on optimising speed for ZK proofs of LLMs. Closed source though. - [Link to Attestable front page] - Same for [jolt labs](https://github.com/ICME-Lab/jolt-atlas) - See also: [ERC 7992](https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/erc-7992-verifiable-ml-model-inference-zkml/24896) **I am still confused if there exists any bottleneck.** - AFAIK people are nowadays moving to GCR / sumcheck based ZK proof systems to generate proofs faster for ML models. (idk what that this, haven't studied yet) - For my use case, proof generation speed is not really a bottleneck though. The oracle will run optimistically anyway, you only need to generate proof in case of a dispute. And you'll be willing to spend atleast $1000 worth of compute and one day worth of time, to generate a proof for like 1000 tokens or something. For reference, Attestable claims 85 tokens/second for 30B model on H100. text_english/my_research/my_views_on_crypto.md000644 000765 000024 00000006433 15177753505 023012 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-01-07 # My views on crypto Disclaimer - **Quick Note** I previously worked in crypto, so I figured I am qualified to give an opinion. The key success of crypto is regulatory arbitrarge. - The basic idea of regulatory arbitrage is that if you want to break the laws of country A, you go host the servers in country B and allow people in country A to access them. Since country A can't just firewall their entire internet (China has tried), and country A can't selectively target these users without paying a significant cost (many countries have tried), this can work. - This reduces the "cost of exit" for those people in country A but dislike country A's laws. - Example: USDC is held by people of many countries that have regulations on tax and capital control, those people would find it worse to just purchase USD instead. - You can apply this core idea to payments, to identity, to finance (not just payments), to social media, and so on. - As of today, it seems unlikely that crypto alternatives will replace the dominant system. But they could continue to exist as an alternative. The very fact that the alternative exists, puts pressure on the dominant system to be less bad for its users (as per whatever its users consider "bad"). The mainstream and alternative system both have pros and cons, and users will pick the lesser evil. - Examples: Decentralised identity is unlikely to replace Aadhaar or Social Security Numbers. Decentralised finance is unlikely to replace Vanguard. Bitcoin is unlikely to replace Bretton Woods system and the key eurodollar lenders. Mastodon is unlikely to replace Twitter. But the existence of these things can affect SSN or Wall Street or eurodollar markets and so on. The main reason why crypto could fail in next 5-30 years is geopolitics and the offense-defence balance of cybersecurity and espionage. - Blockchain system designers assume there are N different actors that they are distributing the system between. In practice, there are basically 9 nuclear-armed countried divided broadly into 2 geopolitical blocs. If both blocs coordinated they could shut down crypto. Crypto relies on both blocs not cooperating at all. Crypto also relies on both blocs not firewalling their internet completely, such that you end up with a world with two different internets. - Blockchain system designers assume that if no single actor can capture censorship or governance mechanisms in their system, this is sufficient. In practice, unless you also ensure privacy for users, the govt can just go imprison that user instead. The govt doesn't need to touch your blockchain system as long as they can doxx the users. - As per Snowden leaks, it is obvious that both blocs are spying on almost everything. There are strong incentive pressures for almost all the information to reach the public. (This is discussed in my other post.) - Even for the information that is most heavily defended, it seems like espionage and cyberhacks can reach it, and the offense-defence balance for both of these is changing. - If you are a govt actor, implanting backdoors in the hardware and software stacks is easy. If you are a random poorly funded developer collective, finding these backdoors is hard. - I want to understand the offence-defence balance of cybersecurity more, and especially how AI will change it. text_english/my_research/my_long_term_view_on_us_geopolitics.md000644 000765 000024 00000017020 15177753505 026377 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2025-05-27 # My long-term view on US geopolitics Disclaimer - **Quick note** - This document includes blind guesses. Don't take this document too seriously unless there's enough evidence for it. Summary - Nuclear security is obviously a major predictor of geopolitics. Since Truman did not nuke USSR and establish US nuclear monopoly after cold war, the world has now been carved into 7-9 nuclear empires. Countries without nukes are client states for one or more empires. - US intelligence community and presidents may have succession lineages that are majority christian/jew, and this might be the single biggest predictor of geopolitics. (Blind guess by me.) - Some factors I think are less predictive of geopolitics than this factor include which country has crude oil and what the ideology of US citizens is. I'm very interested in understanding US geopolitics from the end of world war 2 till today, as it seems influential in most of the geopolitics upto 2025. Countries that have allied with US govt have done well economically on average and countries that haven't have mostly not. (Chinese govt and its allied govts are a recent counterexample.) During first 2 years of cold war, long list of people who advocated pre-emptively nuking USSR and establishing US nuclear monopoly and world government. I still haven't fully understood why this plan was not executed. Were the decision-makers just too slow to reach consensus, did Truman single-handedly veto everyone else for some personal reason or what? In the short-term (1-10 years), geopolitics seems predictable based on material interests. Which war is likely to break out, which resources are urgently required. I want to understand how to predict geopolitics at longer timescales (>50 years). At longer time scales there are a few competing factor worth paying attention to: - personal worldviews of leaders - nuclear security - coal and petroleum reserves - ideological allies Nuclear security obviously played a role. - The world got carved into a small number of large blocks instead of a large number of small blocks, because most world leaders collectively agreed that the less people have nuclear weapons the better. - They could use threat of nuclear war to prevent other countries from building nukes even if they had the technical know-how. A few countries like India and Pakistan managed to bypass this and build nukes anyway, but most countries in the world failed at it. - This still doesn't explain who the blocks will be or what their decision-making will be, beyond predicting each block's leaders will take extreme steps to prevent creation of new blocks. - (This is all obvious to me and I'm assuming most people with a background with geopolitics. But I end up often explaining it to people without one.) - Today's world has only 9 independent empires, every other country is a client state for one or more empires. All empires extract protection money from their client states. - US, UK, France, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea - Due to declining economies, France often defers to US and UK on most military decisions, and Pakistan often defers to US and China on most military decisions. Neither has a good negotiating position. This arguably reduces the number to 7. Coal and petroleum reserves I'm guessing were not that important. - Global energy prices have stagnated at $0.10/kWh since then, with dependence on coal and petroleum. Industry today is still mostly dependent on resources like electricity, natural gas, water, wood, steel and so on, which are ultimately dependent on coal and petroleum. Housing and food transport are dependent on steel and cement industry. - Since fossil fuels are in fixed supply, the primary way to grow your country's wealth is to somehow extract fossil fuels from other countries. Zero-sum game. - Our World in Data has good data on per capita energy consumption by country. US has clearly managed to get good trade deals from most countries with large reserves of coal and petroleum. - However my guess is this is not the fundamental thing that enables you to predict geopolitics. I'm guessing that leaders of US govt are willing to take deals that reduce the amount of crude oil and coal that is available to their citizens, as long as it benefits the leaders personally. Studying divergence of economic interests here seems important. Ideology of citizens seem less important. - It is not clear to me if there is any ideology uniting US citizens. - US public - US constitution is definitely unique in the world and has broad support across the US public. US public has support for democracy more broadly, and is against authoritarianism. - However my guess is that christianity versus atheism is a dividing factor in the US, as big as the constitution is a uniting factor, atleast among the general public. - I don't think democracy versus authoritarianism is the primary predictor of US geopolitics as the US govt has a long history of interfering to democratic elections outside US to prevent anti-US leaders from being elected. - US public does not have broad support in favour of capitalism or against communism. I don't think US public's economic ideology is a major predictor of geopolitics. My guess is geopolitics was driven by some other factor and communism versus capitalism was used as an excuse to rally additional public support. - US public is not very nationalist. US public does not have majority support for extracting resources from other countries at threat of war, with the justification that US lives are worth more. Personal worldviews of leaders. - I'm increasingly biased towards personal worldviews of leaders being the most predictor of US geopolitics. - At >50 year timescales, no individual leader lasts. For >50 year predictable changes, you either need a lineage of successors or you need a uniting ideology across leaders. - AFAIK > 50-year lineages don't really exist in either Republican or Democrat parties. (I haven't read much about either Republicans or Democrats history so I could be wrong.) There may however be >50-year succession lineage in the intelligence community. - My blind guess is that a majority of US presidents were christian. Roosevelt, Truman and Bush were likely christian. Allen Dulles, Henry Kissinger, and more recently Michael Hayden were likely christian/jew. And this was the dominating factor for which countries they chose to ally versus not ally with. - US allies with significant christians: Europe except eastern Europe, Australia, South Korea, Canada, Israel (jew not christian), Brazil, Argentina?, Russia post-WW2 - US allies with significant non-christians: Saudi Arabia, Japan - US non-allies with significant non-christians: Mexico, India, China, Russia today, most of middle East, most of west Asia - To study separately: sub-Saharan Africa, southeast Asia - afaik these countries tend to trade/borrow from both blocs without permanent alliances. I haven't read much. - My guess is a lot of other euphemisms like authoritarian or communist or immigrant or whatever, ultimately get translated to atheist, muslim and hindu - in the minds of US leaders. - Maybe race was another factor but I'm unsure and lack evidence. - If my hypothesis is true - If there were a succession of atheist presidents and intelligence community leaders in the US, it could have significant implications for the future. - China is the only country with nuclear weapons, whose leadership of executive branch and intelligence community is majority atheist. This could have significant implications for the future. text_english/my_research/I_am_okay_deceiving_my_enemies_using_alts_but_not_using_main.md000644 000765 000024 00000001611 15237430260 033342 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-14 # I am okay deceiving my enemies using alts but not using main Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - In my giant ass "I am looking for cofounder" manifesto, I basically ended up putting morality roughly into the categories of violence and deception. - Violence includes violating boundaries (liberal consent norms), and actually inflicting suffering on people directly, and resisting authority - Deception includes telling lies and violating your promises. - In short, I basically concluded that I am fine with violence and I am not fine with deception. - I then justified this stance with a bunch of both instrumental and terminal reasons why I value honesty / truth-telling. - However, on thinking more, I am actually fine with deception on anonymous alts (i.e. phishing, social engineering). I am just not fine with deception on my main account online or by me personally online. text_english/my_research/my_views_on_naval_ravikant_on_asi_risk.md000644 000765 000024 00000047250 15177753505 027054 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-01-15 minor edit 2026-04-21 # My views on Naval Ravikant on ASI risk Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Incomplete** - Writing this because I like a lot of Naval's writings, and have noticed multiple people around me defer to Naval. - I'm unclear if the target audience of this post is Naval himself, or people who defer to Naval. **This post is not about the things I like about Naval's writings, which are many. For that I might write a separate post another time. This post is specifically about where we disagree.** Naval's disagreements with me probably come in the following broad themes. 1. Naval thinks ASI is likely not happening in the next 5-10 years. I disagree, I think there's a significant chance it could happen. 2. Naval thinks business is positive sum and politics is zero sum. And that under most circumstances, you should do business not politics, because it is easier to succeed at business than at politics. I agree with this to some extent, but I think fixing ASI risk is an exception and there's probably no business you can start that fixes ASI risk, all by itself. You still have to fight and win the zero-sum political battle against the people running the AI companies. 3. Naval thinks business is positive sum and politics is zero sum. And that even if you succeed at politics, you will be less happy, for instance because your monkey brain will get trapped winning status games, or you might make moral compromises. I strongly agree with Naval that you'll probably be less happy becoming a politician than an entrepreneur, on average. I am saying it is worth doing even if it makes you less happy. 4. Naval thinks your desire to succeed at either business and politics, ultimately comes from your own personal unhappiness. He thinks you should consider becoming a Buddhist and meditate instead, as a solution to your unhappiness. Or maybe get rich first and then become a Buddhist and meditate. I tried this semi-seriously for a few months but I don't think this will work for me. I have to work on fixing ASI risk in order to stay sane and find meaning in my life. My guess is Naval is fine with some people trying to fix problems in the world. I don't think he is claiming every person on Earth should give up their ambitions immediately in order to find happiness or meaning. ## 1. Naval versus me on timelines to ASI **Our disagreement on point 1 is obviously the most important.** Many of other disagreements might actually be downstream of this, I am unsure. See also: [My AI timelines as of 2025-12](./ai_forecasts/ai_timelines_20251214.md) David Deutsch on ASI timelines - Naval Ravikant quotes David Deutsch on timelines to ASI, and seems to avoid explaining his own views. See the section below for why Naval might be avoiding talking about his specific views. I wish Naval would offer more detail about his own views, instead of hiding behind Deutsch. - I like David Deutsch's writings even when I disagree with them. I wrote a long ass criticism of Deutsch's views on epistemology, but I shifted it to the footer below, because I think it is only loosely relevant to his timelines to ASI. - **I agree with Deutsch that an ASI should be able to create new knowledge and learn new skills on its own, not just copy the knowledge and skills humans have already acquired.** - However, I think GPT-5 is already showing sparks of the former. I think GPT-2 to GPT-5 represents meaningful progress on the former, not just the latter. Copy-pasting from my previous post on this: > - "Generalisation" and "metalearning" are related. Newer models aren't just memorising more skills, but are more capable of learning new skills on their own without human data guiding them. > - There is a difference between training AI such that it learns skills that humans have already have, versus training AI to know how to learn new skills on its own. > - The difference between these two is not binary, there are levels to generalisation. > - Example of low level of generalisation: Seeing lots of english to french translations, and learning to become good at english to french translation > - Example of medium level of generalisation: Seeing many solved competitive programming puzzles and solving another puzzle with an algo similar to one it has seen before for a different puzzle. Seeing lots of english text and a little hindi text, inferring the grammar similarities and differences across human languages, and then learning to speak fluent hindi as a result. (Yeah lol this is a real result, and an old one.) > - Example of high level of generalisation: Seeing a theorem from economics and realising an analogous version of it also applies to biology, thereby solving an open problem in biology. > - GPT2 to GPT5 has led to immense progress in both learning new skills, and learning how to learn new skills. The latter is more important though. > - The best way to test the latter is to give AI problems that a human has never seen, and no human knows how to solve. This could be simple tasks like translation in apocryphal ancient languages or complex tasks like proposing novel molecular bio experiments to run. - I think most of the progress on creating new knowledge is from very black box brute-force heuristic-based techniques and we don't have deep understanding where any of this progress came from. My default expectation is we will continue to get more progress and continue to not have deep understanding where it came from. - **I think I have a deep awe (and fear) of black box techniques that nevertheless work, that is difficult to transmit to another person unless they have also studied the history of deep learning a little bit.** - I would want to know if Deutsch has studied basics of deep learning, such as backpropagation and self-attention and CNN/RNN/LSTM and so on. He has strong theoretical background so I tend to assume he has already done so. (I could be wrong.) I think it is possible to have good takes on AI timelines without reaching the frontier of knowledge on AI, but it is obviously easier to have good takes if you also have this knowledge. - Likewise, I would want to know if Naval has studied basics of deep learning or not. Naval clearly deeply values knowledge for its own sake, so if he has not studied the basics I would urge him to do so. Naval has lots of outside view heuristics on why the pessimists are always wrong. - He says many doom predictions of the past (climate change, overpopulation, nuclear war) have turned out wrong. I agree with him on this (with some minor caveats). - He says media and politics mostly has incentive to attack the status of people creating new wealth via business. Most news is negative and optimised to create negative emotions in your monkey brain. I agree with him on this. - He says pessimism can be self-fulfilling. If you think you are going to fail, you won't try as hard or be as creative, as someone who thinks they are going to succeed. I agree with him on this too. I don't think the doom scenarios are certain. I am actively working to prevent them, and I think my actions can make a difference. ASI is different, actually - I am however claiming that ASI in particular (and intelligence-enhancing technologies like human genetic engineering or whole brain emulation) are actually different. The outside view heuristics fail. You have to form an inside view. Intelligence is what enabled homo sapiens to dominate the Earth. You can't put this technology in the same mental bucket as changing atmospheric CO2 or SO2 levels. P.S. > The inside view and the outside view are two alternative approaches to forecasting. Whereas the inside view attempts to make predictions based on an understanding of the details of a problem, the outside view—also called reference class forecasting—instead looks at similar past situations and predicts based on those outcomes. For example, in trying to predict the time it will take a team to design an academic curriculum, a forecaster can either look at the characteristics of the curriculum to be designed and of the curriculum designers (inside view) or consider the time it has taken past teams to design similar curricula (outside view) I think Deutsch has a lot of respect for human ability to create new knowledge, and how this might enable humans to one day colonise the universe. I think Deutsch might therefore have decent intuitions for why intelligence but more of it, could be scary actually. Copy-pasting from my previous post. > - Human language has features not present in animal language and this is likely an important part of why humans can build spacecraft and colonise the earth, but apes can't. AI already has picked up all these features of human language. > - Go read Hockett's views on what features separate human language from animal language. > - Humans use language for communication. Humans might also use language as part of their reasoning process (along with other modules such as motor skills, spatial visualisation, etc). Both of these are hypotheses for what separates humans from apes, and I think there's a good chance they're true. > - Other hypotheses include bigger birth canal and brain size, and evolutionary pressures to win social games. These hypotheses seem compatible with the hypothesis that language is most important. > - Depending on how you measure it, AI may now be the second most complex object in the observable universe. More complex than ape brain but less complex than human brain. ## 2. Naval versus me whether politics is harder than business, to fix ASI risk Assume Naval agreed with me that ASI was coming, and that it posed a risk. Would he agree with me on the solutions I'm proposing? Naval generally defaults to starting a business, not entering politics, as a way to fix big problems. I am making a very strong claim if true. I am saying there is probably no business you can start that fixes the problem of ASI risk but avoids the zero-sum political fight. I am open to being proved wrong. Alignment is hard - The most obvious first idea you might have here is to create your company that builds ASI, that simultaneously wins the capabilities race, and invests more in alignment. - Lots of people have written on why this is an obviously bad idea, why alignment is hard to fix in 5-10 years, why even mech interp is hard to solve in 5-10 years, and so on. - Naval has not written his specific opinions on any of this literature, and I don't like guessing his opinions here, if he has not explicitly written them down. Becoming world dictator is bad actually - In my mind, it seems likely that democracy and capitalism are not going to survive the creation of ASI. Suppose you succeed at building ASI, and by some mix of luck and effort, manage to keep it controlled. This will give you such an overwhelming technological advantage (which then translates to political, economic and military advantage) that there's a significant chance you can simply crown yourself world dictator. - Since the ASI will be faster at creating new knowledge than any human (not just theoretical knowledge, but also implementation-level detail, learning from reality), it will also likely be way faster at acquiring power than any human. If the ASI doesn't use this knowledge to acquire power, the people controlling the ASI would use this to acquire power. The most extreme technologies we humans can foresee are nanotechnology and hyperpersuasion; an ASI might be able to foresee something even more extreme than this. - If you build an ASI and crown yourself world dictator, you are part of the problem. - Separately, even if I started an ASI company, I also don't think the probability that I personally would become world dictator is that high, compared to the probability of my competitor becoming world dictator, or the probability of one of us losing control of an ASI. I think the AI company heads might be making irrational decisions even from their own narrow self-interested perspective. See also: [My letter to heads of AI labs](../letter_to_ai_lab_heads.md) Delegating versus doing it yourself - Naval might still have an inclination that some entrepreneur will find some creative solution to this whole problem. - I am saying, no actually, unless you personally can come up with some creative solution, you don't get to just assume that someone else will do it. If Naval thinks my solution is bad (I don't know if he thinks this), maybe he should take some responsbility of his own, and offer his own improved solution. If he did offer an improved solution, that would actually make me happy. ## 3. Naval versus me on doing politics while staying happy and being high integrity I actually agree with a lot of Naval's writings on this topic. I definitely agree with Naval's view of morality and self-esteem a lot more than I agree with utilitarianism or longtermism, for example. However, I also think Naval's claims are sometimes too strong and not that helpful to people actually engaged in the messy reality of politics. Some examples below: - Naval basically thinks you should never go to jail, or risk going to jail. - What is his opinion of MLK Jr and Bevel's tactic of flooding prisons with school children, as part of the Civil Rights Movement? What is his opinion of Mahatma Gandhi going to prison? What advice would Naval have given Bevel or Gandhi? - What is his opinion of all the cypherpunk activists who ended up going to jail, be it Aaron Schwarz or the Tornado cash founders or the people who worked on PGP or Tor? Is his advice to all of them - "git gud and be smart about avoiding jail"? I might agree with this actually, but I think the risk is always non-zero. Snowden knows there's a non-zero chance he can be assassinated even today. - Naval thinks if you tell enough lies, you might lose your self-respect. - What is his opinion of Churchill giving propaganda speeches so that teenage boys sign up for the army and walk into near-certain death, so that Britain could ultimately beat Nazi Germany in WW2? What advice would Naval have given Churchill? - This is a specific example ofcourse, but military propaganda is a very common thing across history, used by both the "good guys" and the "bad guys". In my head, the politicians I like (MLK Jr, Churchill, Nehru) and the politicians I dislike (Genghis Khan, Hitler) both have lots of blood of innocent people on their hands, and the differentiating factor between them is more nuanced. (My views on this are best saved for another post.) I don't currently think Naval has sufficiently good advice for politicians navigating these sorts of moral tradeoffs. ## 4. Naval versus me on whether you should follow Nietzsche or Buddha I don't want to write a long ass para here because I don't think Naval himself is making very strong claims, on whether you should become more like Nietzsche (don't accept reality, bend it to your will) or more like Buddha (accept reality as it is). MtG Green versus MtG Black. Many philosophers have written about the clash between these two perspectives. I can say though I personally don't exactly feel like I have a choice in the matter. I think I am probably ambitious because I am unhappy with reality as it is, rather than being unhappy because I am ambitious. I am not very optimistic that a few months (or even a few years) of practising meditation and acceptance, will make me happy. The knowledge will continue to weigh on me, that I could have actually done something to fix ASI risk but chose not to. If lots of people become like Buddha, the few people who don't might build AI companies and literally create world dictatorship or cause human extinction. If you are telling everyone to be Buddhist, are you really okay with this being the direct consequence of your life philosophy recommendations? ## Meta note: Why Naval avoids getting into specifics - Naval deliberately writes very general principles instead of getting into specifics. - There might be multiple reasons for this. For instance, he might want simpler world models because they help him think better, or because they help him reach a wider audience. - **He might want to avoid making enemies of specific people in his network or outside of it, and hence does not name them in his writing.** If this is the reason, I would appreciate a bit more meta-honesty from Naval on this. Naval can easily say the following sentence. "Yes, I avoid discussing specifics because there are people who I don't yet want to make enemies of." - Unfortunately, my disagreements with Naval mostly revolve around specific details. Since he has not mentioned many of the specific details, I can only guess what these are, and will sometimes get these guesses wrong. - I think Naval might be making a mistake by avoiding discussing the specific details in public. (Weak opinion) At the very least, he should be willing to think through the specific details in private. - **This is extremely important and a major part of why Naval and I are failing to converge on some consensus viewpoint.** ## Meta note: I am in the arena, Naval is watching from the sidelines - I think even Naval will probably agree with me on this. Since I am actually trying to fix ASI risk and am failing multiple times, it is possible I have insights on how to fix ASI risk that he doesn't have. --- ## Side Note: Deutsch on epistemology I want to spend more time reading Deutsch's view on epistemology before I confidently offer a critique. Here's my current views, based on my incomplete understanding of Deutsch's views. **Please don't take the stuff below too seriously, I will get back to it later.** On Deutsh's epistemology - I like Deutsch's views on epistemology but am more sympathetic to Jaynes or Bayes or Marcus Hutter on epistemology. I like AIXI and simplicity prior and bayesianism and assigning probabilities to world models. I am aware it is often difficult for human brains to implement this in practice (AIXI assumes turing machines with infinite time and space, not human brains). Deutsch seems to not like simplicity prior because he thinks it depends on your laws of physics. I am not happy with Deutsch's critique of simplicity prior. I think an analogue of Kolmogorov complexity can be defined even if you assumed the world was a quantum turing machine as opposed to a classical turing machine, and that both complexity measures have direct linear relationship with each other. I think no matter what laws of physics the world actually followed, if they were deterministic in some sense, intelligent people living in that world could define a complexity measure and a simplicity prior and so on. I think there would likely be a clear relationship between what people in that world thought was simple and what people in our world thought was simple. - I also have some views of my own on epistemology. I can summarise here but I think details are best left elsewhere. I think scientific progress happens in stages - first someone invents a data collection instrument (telescope, microscope, etc), then there's a loop where experimentalists and theoreticians work together over multiple iterations. Lots of experimentalists go and collect data with this instrument, and a lot of theoreticians try to form world models about the system from which they are collecting data. Both theoretical work and experimental work inform each other, and good work by either often accelerates the other. Deutsch gives a lot of weight to the theoreticians here, and thinks they are solving the hard part of the problem. For some fields this is true. For many fields, I think the hardest and most neglected part is inventing the data collection instrument itself. Ofcourse, inventing the data collection instrument requires creativity from theoreticians. It requires previous progress in other fields, such as glass welding or material science or precision manufacturing or similar. Maybe Deutsch actually agrees with me here. I am not sure. text_english/my_research/subscriber_count_graphs_of_popular_youtubers_on_asi_risk.md000644 000765 000024 00000004547 15177753505 032726 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-19 # Subscriber count graphs of popular youtubers on ASI risk Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - target audience - potential youtubers on ASI risk Main - **It seems likely to me that these are among the most important graphs in human history, and whether our species lives or dies depends on these graphs.** - The most important thing to track is not the absolute number of subscribers as a function of time, but the slope in number of subcribers as a function of time. Youtube channels, like software apps, follow exponential growth curves. Most people are not used to thinking in terms of exponentials. Even a mediocre channel could grow if you make enough videos. A good channel will grow more quickly with lesser videos required. - I am tracking only youtube not twitter or substack, because the highest view counts are orders of magnitude higher. As of 2025-03, MrBeast has over 400 million subscribers. Top substack accounts have less than 10M subscribers. I am aware that all views are not equal, and views of powerful or technical people are worth more, for the AI pause political movement. (Update - I should probably publish twitter subscriber curves too, many accounts reaching 100k subs there as well) - Statistics obtained from viewstats by MrBeast on 2026-03-19. (Viewstats is also good for tracking outlier videos) Rational Animations ![Rational Animations](../../non_text_non_video/viewstats_images/rationalanimations.jpeg "Rational Animations") AI in context ![AI in context](../../non_text_non_video/viewstats_images/ai_in_context.jpeg "AI in context") The AI Risk Network - John Sherman ![The AI Risk Network](../../non_text_non_video/viewstats_images/theairisknetwork.jpeg "The AI Risk Network") AI Species - Drew Spartz ![AI Species](../../non_text_non_video/viewstats_images/aispecies.jpeg "AI species") Doom Debates - Liron Shapira ![Doom Debates](../../non_text_non_video/viewstats_images/doomdebates.jpeg "Doom Debates") Lethal intelligence - Michael Zafiris could not obtain graph - 162K subs Rob Miles ![Rob Miles](../../non_text_non_video/viewstats_images/robmilesai.jpeg "Rob Miles") Siliconversations - Liam ![Siliconversations](../../non_text_non_video/viewstats_images/siliconversations.jpeg "Siliconversations") The Inside View - Michael Trazzi ![The Inside View](../../non_text_non_video/viewstats_images/theinsideview.jpeg "The Inside View") text_english/my_research/._why_is_yudkowsky_so_persuasive.md000644 000765 000024 00000000334 15256133224 025651 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 Mac OS X  2ATTRHHcom.apple.maclgh'@`"'text_english/my_research/PaxHeader/why_is_yudkowsky_so_persuasive.md000644 000765 000024 00000000414 15256133224 027404 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 30 mtime=1790490260.652206464 133 LIBARCHIVE.xattr.com.apple.macl=CABnaKOBJ8tAYJ4W8NYiJ7vnAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 105 SCHILY.xattr.com.apple.macl=gh'@`"' text_english/my_research/why_is_yudkowsky_so_persuasive.md000644 000765 000024 00000014047 15256133224 025442 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-27 # Why is Yudkowsky so persuasive? Disclaimer - **Thinking aloud, may not endorse after a lot of thought** - Copy-pasted from other places, so there may be minor issues with flow, formatting, etc ## Perspective 1 - target suffering (I have copy-pasted this entire section from a [comment I wrote on Lesswrong](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BFrRJYgpBvziuuJLs/if-anyone-builds-it-everyone-dies-one-year-closer?commentId=hhwxrmZFrkm5dG8rJ)) Copy-pasting from my website: > Study mass movements, political ideologies, propaganda, psychology, therapy, religion, pickup artistry, sales, art/music/dance to figure out how to break the core of people's psychology. > > Most effective method is probably to target audiences that are suffering due to fear of death or job loss or relationship loss, and deliver your ideology as a potential solution to their problems. For instance, you can read about how religion helps people cope with death, or about how social left versus right divide polarises the sexual marketplace, or how labour unions organise against job loss. As a more specific example, you can read about how the 60s counterculture in US or the October revolution in Serbia made it attractive to be a rebel. > > Weaker persuasion methods include becoming extremely confident and high status (see also: groupthink), and using rituals/music/marches/brand advertising/etc (see also: Krashen's input hypothesis). Memory tests might be useful for persuasion. > > Consider persuading people in Taiwan. > > Be either extremely honest or extremely good at deception. Do things that ensure you retain high self-esteem. > > Lastly, get good at youtube scriptwriting to deliver your ideology effectively, and consider inviting people from GMU. Otherwise make art. Yudkowsky has in fact followed a lot of this advice, and that is why he is as popular as he is. - Target suffering - He has talked a lot about his suffering due to childhood indoctrination from religion and from school, his suffering due to having to walk his path completely alone and its effects on his psychology, his suffering due to the world not caring about the same things as him and so on. He has talked about why aging and death are terrible, and how his way of coping with the fear of death is to end death itself. - Claim high status - He has been shamelessly claiming high status for decades now, and back then it was actually kinda cringe to do it, because not many people respected him. Today ofcourse he is actually respected by many people so it is not as cringe to claim high status. - Simple beats complex - He invented jargon to make complex ideas easier to remember, transmit and collectively pay attention to it. **The main problem here is that Yudkowsky's memeplex is highly targeted only at young atheist technical nerds, preferably those with bad christian upbringing, preferably those young enough to have not locked in to a career path yet, and so on.** There are many other factions in the culture war, and targeting those people is going to require different memeplexes. In particular, those who are Green or White on the magic the gathering colour wheel (I borrowed this idea from you), are going to feel completely unrepresented by Yudkowsky's ideas. And these people currently form a majority of US and world population. ## Perspective 2 - target social dark matter (Copy-pasted from from my post: [Why I am not starting a religion?](./why_no_religion.md)) There are many lenses from which I can attempt to analyse this. The lens I prefer to discuss right now is [social dark matter](https://homosabiens.substack.com/p/social-dark-matter) - whatever people are not willing to talk about in public is probably what is most important. Listed below are the common categories of social dark matter. I recommend memorising them by heart. This framework is as fundamental to my understanding of human behaviour as something like Maslow's hierarchy. - death, sex, close relationship conflicts (includes parenting and marriage), morality and politics, money, physical and mental health (includes substance use) #### Traditional religions on SDM Summarised - Death - Christianity and Islam say attain eternal life. Buddhism says attain englightenment. Hinduism says escape from reincarnation. Hence no fear of death - Sex - Puritan sexual norms. Prioritise longterm marriage or else a vow of celibacy. - Close relationship conflicts - Raise children in same religion, prioritise keeping relationships - Morality and politics - Christianity and Buddhism never permit violence. Hinduism and Islam permit violence on the outgroup under certain restrictive circumstances (which are open to interpretation). - Money - Not a life priority, keep enough to survive, donate to members of ingroup - Physical and mental health - No substance use. Prioritise preserving health as instrumental goal. There are lot of nuances here I haven't tried to understand or explain. If you actually believe a traditional religion, I am not your best source for knowledge on this. #### Pro-ASI religion on SDM Summarised - Death - Immortality via mind uploading - Sex - Infinite hedonism, optionally - Close relationship conflicts - Make digital copies of yourself, not children. Also, maybe you don't need children for legacy if you're immortal yourself - Morality and politics - Run simulations of various minds in various environments, and use these to solve morality and politics. Convert them both from social science problems into math problems of CEV and game theory respectively. Also absolute dictatorial mind control is now possible. - Money - Colonise the entire universe to get more resources for yourself - Physical and mental health - Perfect physical health, including optional upgrades. Infinite hedonism, optionally. Open questions on life's purpose, it's possible IMO that most beings have no purpose in such a world. I am not sure which of these most motivates people today, but if I had to guess it is probably immortality via mind uploading. This explains for example why Sutton and Schmidhuber, who are both in their old age, are also the most pro-ASI. text_english/my_research/us_govt_whistleblower_guide_theory_of_change.md000644 000765 000024 00000066223 15177753505 030257 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-01-19 # Theory of Change for US Govt Whistleblower Database and Guide **Disclaimer** - **I have quickly copy-pasted sections from an older document. Minor errors possible.** - **Contains politically sensitive info** ## Existing projects and weaknesses - EA projects - Most EA funding currently goes to: - technical AI research - I am supportive of technical AI alignment research but bearish on most of it working out given the timeframe of 5 years. - I am more optimistic on AI ban and international coordination, than I am on most alignment research agendas. - Out of the alignment research agendas I'm most optimistic on AI boxing. This too will only work until some level of superintelligence, and eventually international coordination to pause or ban research is needed. - supporting AI policymakers - By 2026-27, AI will likely become a top item of national security interest of both US and China. - Convincing US policymakers is less helpful, if the policymakers are attempting to act against the perceived self-interest of both the US Congress and Senate members, and the perceived self-interest of leaders of US intelligence community, - 99% of humanity is still broadly unaware of the AI risk arguments as presented by Yudkowsky and others, despite billions in funding for AI risk. Movements that aim for mass public support are able to get more awareness for less money spent IMO. - Existing whistleblower guides - SecureDrop (Freedom of the Press Foundation) provides basic guidelines for whistleblowers using their system - [TAILS documentation](https://tails.net/doc/) - They don't openly say this is for whistleblowers, but I found these docs extremely useful - [Guides by Government Accountability Project (GAP)](https://whistleblower.org/resources/#resources-about-whistleblowing) - [Tech Worker's Handbook by the Signals Network](https://techworkerhandbook.org) - [Guides by Protonmail](https://proton.me/blog/whistleblower-communication) - Did not find guides by EFF, ACLU, yet - [GIJN list of guides for journalists (not whistleblowers)](https://gijn.org/resource/working-with-whistleblowers/) - My generic view on most existing whistleblower guides - Generally supportive - Mostly written by citizens of US resident in US. This has obvious chilling effect on what they can publish in public. - Some of these guides have a lot of useful information. I have read all the above guides in detail. - Most of their guides are useful for a whistleblower who does not leak classified information, and stays within the US for a legal defence. - They have a lot less public information on whistleblowers who escape the country (such as Snowden or Assange) or leak classified information. Such whistleblowers need legal expertise on international law, making asylum requests, and geopolitics. I have not found a public guide with this information yet. - Existing tech projects - Side note: Less than 100 devs seem to be managing the codebases for all the below listed projects. This all by itself seems like an attack vector to me. I have not verified exact figures. - Tails (owned by Tor project) - Highly supportive - It acts as a foundation for this project - Tor browser - Highly supportive - It acts as a foundation for this project - SecureDrop (uses pgp and Tor under-the-hood) - Highly supportive - I wrote a detailed review and criticism of SecureDrop. See also: [Securedrop review](./securedrop_review.md) - Biggest weakness is that it is only used by journalists inside of the US geopolitical sphere of influence (North America, Europe, Australia, etc). Not used by journalists in India, China, Russia, Israel for example. - Second biggest weakness is that it does very little to improve opsec of whistleblower, and primarily improves opsec of journalist. IMO this is not great, as it does not earn trust of whistleblower who is more likely to go to prison. (Multiple previous case studies including Reality Winner, where journalists have been careless about whistleblower privacy.) - Signal - Highly supportive - For this project, I think Signal is not optimal, atleast as it works today. - SecureDrop or similar approach may still be best for this project. Journalist and youtubers can run their own onion servers without involving any third party server. - Posting messages to Signal's servers is slightly better than posting encrypted messages on some random third party server, like how say, dark web vendors do currently. Signal takes some measures such as sealed sender (which I like) and secure enclave (which I don't like) to reduce metadata they collect on their server. - Signal doesn't run well on tails, some of its features are mobile-native. For instance it only does phone number registration, no anonymous method such as cryptocurrency payment or PoW hashes. Waiting for this to get fixed. - I might write a detailed review of Signal sometime. - Protonmail - Highly supportive - For this project, Protonmail does not offer significant security features compared to just using gmail. Can assume both maintain logs and will cooperate with law enforcement. The main feature I like is that Protonmail offers anonymous registration using cryptocurrency. - Bare minimum opsec: Protonmail + PGP + tails - Bare minimum that any journalist or youtuber should be offering IMO, even if they don't have full-time effort to devote to running servers or studying cybersecurity. - Lack of technical knowledge is the only reason I can see why journalists and youtubers don't offer this. - Existing journalist projects - The Intercept - I take neutral and not positive opinion on their work today - Was founded with help of Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald, who worked with the Edward Snowden leaks - Both of them ended up resigned due to lapses of opsec on the part of the Intercept editors, which ended with Reality Winner being imprisoned - Both journalists are now working independently. - [Glenn Greenwald runs an independent news channel](https://rumble.com/GGreenwald) on Rumble. - Independent SecureDrop servers - Some journalists such as Stefania Maurizi and Kenneth Rosen run SecureDrop servers independent of any corporate-funded media org. - Stefania Maurizi has worked with both Assange and Snowden previously. - Wikileaks - Highly supportive - Assange has recently been released from prison after few years in UK prison and few years in Ecuador embassy. - [His latest statement after being released](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai34Uxnv_4s) does not indicate any plans to continue operating wikileaks. - Likely has extensive expertise relevant to this project, but may not be able to publicly provide it. - Existing whistleblowers - With enough branding, it may be possible to contact existing govt whistleblowers for their expertise. - Edward Snowden - Likely has extensive expertise relevant to this project, but may not be able to provide it. Putin's terms for asylum explicitly included not carrying out any further leaks. - See list of case studies for more. ## Theory of change - We publish a high-quality guide supporting whistleblowers - We make the guide popular in relevant circles - => a) Whistleblowing without going to prison becomes less risky, and b) whistleblowers feel they have moral support from our team, and c) whistleblower becomes better calibrated on success likelihood of this plan, which is above 50% IMO. - => Increased probability that a whistleblower comes forward and leaks information. - => Leaked information gets published. - => Citizens in multiple countries are convinced AI risk is a top priority issue. More people within government of US and China are convinced AI risk is a top priority issue. They get an accurate picture of the situation as it plays out in real time. - => "Common knowledge" is established. It becomes more in the self-interest of anyone in US Congress/Senate to take steps on the issue. - => Complete global ban on AI research. Whistleblowers are disprortionately important for changing everyone's minds (collective epistemology) - I generally think the average human being is bad (relative to me) at reasoning about hypothetical futures, but not that bad (relative to me) at reasoning about something with clear empirical data. - Imagine two hypothetical worlds. Which one leads to more people being convinced of the truth? - One world in which lots of people speculated about NSA backdoors in fiber optic cables and operating systems and so on but no actual backdoors were found, and no real empirical data for it. - And another world in which nobody speculated about it, but a whistleblower like Snowden found clear empirical evidence for it. - I also think if you're inside an org that has lot of collective attention, you will also get a lot of collective attention. - Case study: As of 2025-01, Geoffrey Hinton has been covered by a lot of mainstream news channels. For most people on Earth who are now introduced to AI risk as a serious topic, I'm guessing this their first introduction. - Case study: As of 2025-05, Daniel Kokjatilo's predictions have been [read by people inside US executive branch](https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1925138917143044154) - Most AI risk advocates have probably not acquired same amount of attention as either of these two, despite spending lot more of their energy and attention in a attempt to acquire it. - **I think one single whistleblower providing clear empirical evidence of incoming AI risk might end up convincing more people than hundreds of people making speculative arguments.** ## Red-teaming theory of change Here is a giant list of reasons why people might not want to fund this. (You can add a comment to upvote any reason or add a new one. I will add more arguments and evidence for whichever points get upvoted by more people.) - US intelligence circles will significantly underestimate national security implications of AI, lots of information about AI companies will not become classified - Disagree - I think AI will likely be the number one national security issue of the US by 2026 or 2027 and lots of important information will get classified soon after. - I'm putting more evidence here because this argument got upvoted. - Attention of govt and intelligence circles - Paul Nakasone - ex-Director of NSA, now on OpenAI board - [Recent talk by Paul Nakasone](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1bzZwFQUcI) - Says: Cybersecurity, AI, and protecting US intellectual property (including AI model weights) as the primary focus for the NSA. - Likely a significant reason why he was hired by Sam Altman. - Timothy Haugh - ex-Director of NSA, fired by Trump in 2025 - [Recent talk by Timothy Haugh](https://youtu.be/JIrw_ybds0s?si=RntO2mx9XzTeGftj) (12:00 onwards) - Says: Cybersecurity and AI are top challenges of US govt. - Says: AI-enabled cyberwarfare such as automated penetration testing now used by NSA. - Says: Over 7000 NSA analsysts are now using LLMs in their toolkit. - William Burns - ex-Director of CIA - [Recent talk by William Burns](https://youtu.be/S9yqvn8B3no?si=puq9--89dXjrpLLE) (22:00 onwards) - Says: Ability of CIA to adapt to emerging technologies including large language models is number one criteria of success of CIA. - Says: Analysts use LLMs to process large volumes of data, process biometric data and city-level surveillance data. - Says: Aware of ASI risk as a theoretical possibility. - Says: CIA uses social media to identify and recruit potential Russian agents. - Avril Haines - ex-Director of National Intelligence, ex-Deputy Director of CIA, ex-National Security Advisor - [Recent talk by Avril Haines](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxh87QQUzLc) - Says: major priority for her is US election interference using generative AI in social media by Russia and China - US policy efforts on GPU sanctioning China - Significant US policy efforts already in place to sanction GPU exports to other countries. - China is currently bypassing export controls, which will lead US intelligence circles to devise measures to tighten export controls. - Export controls are a standard lever that US policymaking and intelligence circles pull on many technologies, not just AI. This ensure US remains in frontier R&D of most science, technology and engineering. - Attention of Big Tech companies - Leaders of Big Tech companies, including Jensen Huang, Satya Nadella, Larry Ellison, Reid Hoffman, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and Bill Gates have made public statements that their major focus is AI competitiveness. - Elon Musk - Elon Musk is explicitly interested in influencing US govt policy on tech. - As of 2025-05, Elon Musk likely owns the world's largest GPU datacenter. - Has publicly spoken about AI risk on multiple podcasts - Mark Zuckerberg - As of 2025-05, open sources latest AI models - Has previously interacted with multiple members of Senate and Congress - Has publicly spoken about AI risk on multiple pdocasts - People who understand nothing about AI will follow **lagging indicators** like capital and attention. This includes people within US govt. - Capital inflow to AI industry and AI risk - OpenAI, Deepmind and Anthropic have posted total annual revenue of $10B in 2024. This implies total market cap between $100B and $1T as of 2024. For reference, combined market cap of Apple, Google, Microsoft and Facebook is $10T as of 2025-05. - All Big Tech companies have experience handling US classified information. Amazon and Microsoft manage significant fraction of US government datacentres. - If you believe AI in 2027 will be signifcantly better than AI in 2024, you can make corresponding estimates of revenue and market cap. - Attention inflow to AI industry - OpenAI claims 400 million weekly active users. This is 5% of world population. For reference, estimated 67% of world population has ever used the internet. - As of 2025-05, Geoffrey Hinton speaking about AI risk has been covered by mainstream news channels across the world, which has significant increased the fraction of humanity that is aware of AI risk. (You can test this hypothesis by speaking to strangers outside of your friends-of-friends bubble.) - AI capability increases will outpace ability of US intelligence circles to adapt. Lots of information won't become classified. - Weakly disagree - I have low (but not zero) probability we get ASI by 2027. If we get ASI by 2030, I think there's enough time for them to adapt. - Classifying information is possible without significant changes in org structure or operational practices of AI labs. This means it can be done very quickly. - Classification is a legal tool. - The actual operational practices to defend information can take multiple years to implement, but this can come after information is already marked classified in terms of legality. - US govt can retroactively classify information after it has already been leaked. - This allows the US govt to pursue a legal case against the whistleblower under Espionage Act and prevent them from presenting evidence in court because it is now classified information. - The specific detail of whether information was classified at the time of leaking is less important than whether it poses a national security threat as deemed by US intelligence circles. (Law does not matter when it collides with incentives, basically.) - Case studies - Mark Klein's 2006 leak of AT&T wiretapping - retroactively classified - Hillary Clinton 2016 email leak - retroactively classified - Abu Ghraib abuse photographs 2004 - retroactively classified - Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl 15-6 investigation file 2016 - retroactively classified - Opsec requirements to protect yourself from the US govt is very hard, and my current level of technical competence is not enough to add value here. - Disagree - The whistleblower guide I'm writing explicitly states that the strategy is leaving the US and publishing, not staying anonymous indefinitely. It is assumed the NSA or AI lab internal security will doxx you eventually. - A lot of people with cybersecurity background are IMO too focussed on ensuring anonymity indefinitely, which I agree is very hard. My strategy requires as much preparation of legal and media training aspects as it does cybersecurity, because it is not a strategy that relies on indefinite anonymity. - IMO there's atleast 50% chance a top software developer at an AI company can pull this off even without a guide. - Part of the value of the guide is simply reminding developers that succeeding at this plan is hard but not impossibly hard, and that with some preparation there's a high probability they can pull this off. - Increasing probability of success from say 50% to 70% makes this guide worth publishing for me. There's a strong case IMO for why this success probability increase directly correlates with reduction in AI x-risk probability. - One whistleblower's publication of empirical real world data could be worth more for collective epistemology than hundreds of high-status people making speculative arguments. - Should support whistleblowers coming out publicly in the US, instead of going to another country to release the documents - Disagree - I agree that for people who don't leak classified information, staying in the US with a legal defence is an option. - That requires a very different guide from this one, and it may be worth writing that too. Once I'm done writing this guide I might consider writing that one too. - There's also a lot more empirical data for that type of guide, because there are more such cases. - Case studies - Every single example of leaking US government classified information in past 30 years has led to the whistleblower getting imprisoned, if they leaked US classified information - Example: Reality Winner, Chelsea Manning - Only one person leaked US classified information and escaped prison. - Example: Edward Snowden - Examples of people who were not imprisoned despite leaking US classified information are >30 years old. - Example: Daniel Ellsberg, maybe Perry Fellwock - Should privately support whistleblowers leaking classified information, but publicly not talk about leaking classified information - Disagree - Many aspects of the plan depend critically on whether classified information is leaked or not, as most whistleblowers who don't leak classified information don't get imprisoned, and all whistleblowers who leak classified information get imprisoned. - Having clear writing and thinking on this issue is extremely important. I can't muddy it by replacing "classified" with some euphemism for it. - I would like to earn the trust of a potential whistleblower without deception. - In case of a conflict of interest between doing what is right for the whistleblower, versus doing what is right for the journalist / lawyer / funder / etc, I will prioritise the whistleblower. - Whistleblowers are the people most likely to go to prison, and this is a factor influencing why I prioritise earning their trust over everyone else's. - Writing such a guide is too hard. Any whistleblower who needs your guide is going to get themselves arrested anyway. - Disagree - Since the plan involves leaving the US, I think it's possible for a potential whistleblower to make some opsec mistakes and still escape with their life. - The guide explicitly states that indefinite anonymity is not possible, and what is at stake is only the time duration before they get doxxed. - The guide needs to transmit both the opsec mindset, and a specific set of opsec rules. If both are successfully transmitted, the whistleblower can then attempt to adapt any part of it to their unique circumstances. - Transmitting opsec mindset, not just a set of opsec rules, is hard to do in a short amount of time. I still think it is worth figuring out how to do this. A lot of employees at OpenAI/Anthropic/Deepmind/etc are software developers and teaching them security mindset may be easier to do. - A high-quality guide for this set of circumstances does not exist on the internet as far as I know. There are a lot of opsec guides on the internet for everyone from software developers to non-classified whistleblowers to dark web drug vendors to hackers. Obtaining information from those guides and distilling it into a clear set of rules requires time and energy the whistleblower may not have. Most likely, they will benefit from a ready-to-go guide. - The guide will have to be regularly updated with new information as security landscape changes. - Hot war between US and China/Russia is very unlikely. US journalists and youtubers can be trusted to publish the documents, non-US journalists don't need to be involved. - Disagree - I agree there is a significant probability no hot war happens. I think hot war has atleast 10% chance, and is worth preparing for. - I'm guessing our actual disagreement is on how likely superintelligent AI is to be built in the first place, or something similar. - It is obvious to me why a intelligence community and AI lab that has succeeded at building aligned superintelligent AI will try to disable the military and nuclear command of the other country, for instance by cyberhacking, hyperpersuasion, bioweapons, nanotech weapons or so on. - Even if superintelligent AI has not yet been built, if your country has significant chance of building it first, it makes game theoretic sense to pre-emptively escalate military conflict. - If any country's govt actually gets convinced that superintelligent AI is likely to cause human extinction, they might pre-emptively escalate military conflict to get other govts to stop building it. - US journalists will have specific pro-US govt biases in how the publish about the piece. - This could make it harder to convince the general public outside the US of the issue, even they are aware of it. - Publishing original redacted documents is not necessary. Journalists writing a propaganda piece on the issue without publishing documents is fine - Disagree - Counterexamples: - Kelsey Piper at Vox publishes redacted documents. - Snowden insisted on transferring documents to journalists and picking journalists who will report the truth honestly and choose what to disclose. - Supporting independent whistleblowers is useful, but supporting independent cyberhackers is not useful - Disagree - Choosing not to support independent cyberhackers significantly reduces the amount of information that can be published. - Case study - Guccifer 2.0 leak revealing private emails of Hillary Clinton about Bernie Sanders was most likely obtained by cyberhacking not by a whistleblower - This had non-negligible influence on 2016 US election - Whistleblower providing clearcut evidence will not lead to an AI ban - Disagree - Examples of specific evidence a whistleblower may uncover: - Latest capabilities of AI models, including real examples of AI being using for persuasion (including hyperpersuasion), cyberhacking (including discovering novel zerodays in hardware or software), bioweapons R&D (including inventing novel bioweapons), designs for hypothetical future weapons, and so on. - Private notes such as diaries and emails where leadership of AI company or leadership of government talks about their true values, including whose lives they prioritise above whose. - Example: 2016 DNC email leak uncovered some of Hillary Clinton's true thoughts on her campaign backers or on Bernie Sanders. This led to non-zero influence on US election in 2016. - Example: Assange's collateral murder video uncovered true thoughts of those involved in the shooting. This led to non-zero influence on anti-war protests in US, but has not yet significantly changed US foreign policy. - Since ideologies (including moral ideologies) associated with AI risk are more extreme, the uncovered information on true values of leaders could also be more extreme. - Full causal chain behind a certain decision, including all the decison-makers involved and how certain stakeholders conspired to take control away from other stakeholders. - Example: Snowden explains in detail how the US Supreme Court, members of Congress and Senate, judges on the FISA court, US inspector general, internal reporting channels within NSA were all systematically used or hacked, in order to keep secret the extent to which NSA surveillance has pervaded. This has not yet lead to major changes in this issue. - There may be a similar causal chain behind important decisons taken using AI, where many nominal decision-makers in US democracy are routed around and power is centralised in the hands of a very small number of people. - See also: AI governance papers posted on Lesswrong on AI-enabled dictatorships and coups. - Instead of mass broadcasting whistleblower guide, consider passing a message to AI employees privately - Maybe - Someone else can take this strategy while I follow my strategy. I think both are worth doing. - Me starting my project could inspire someone else to collaborate or start similar projects. - Finding journalists in non-US-allied states who cover tech accurately and can adopt latest tech tools may be difficult - Agree - Agree, but still think it is worth trying. - Legal expertise is currently missing on the team - Agree - Will need to collaborate with someone with legal expertise ## Moral It is possible there is misalignment of moral values between me and the funder. This is discussed here. - Should not leak classified info, breaking US law is morally wrong - Disagree - Moral disagreements are hard to resolve, I don't know of any one paragraph answer that is likely to convince you. Maybe post your specific disagreement somewhere and I can have a look. - Supporting whistleblowers is morally correct but supporting independent cyberhackers is morally incorrect - Disagree - Both will necessarily leak important information of people without their consent. - Moral disagreements are hard to resolve, I don't know of any one paragraph answer that is likely to convince you. Maybe post your specific disagreement somewhere and I can have a look. - Private lives of people at the companies might get leaked and this is bad. - Disagree - I assume that the whistleblower or the journalist will often redact information that is not politically important, in either case. Private lives of people can still be redacted. - It is possible that both the whistleblower and the journalist choose to not redact some information. I am okay with this happening in the worst case, and I understand why some people might not be okay with this. - I think downsides of a world with powerful organisations able to keep secrets are worse than downsides of their private lives also being revealed to public. - Case studies - Wikileaks has previously posted private life details such as evidence a politically influential person hired sex workers. text_english/my_research/what_happened_to_vincent_canfield_cockbox_versus_michael_hirdes_ccc_case.md000644 000765 000024 00000002116 15210101513 035642 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-04 # What happened to the Vincent Canfield (cockbox) versus Michael Hirdes (CCC) case? Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - CCC is a famous left-leaning hacker conference in Germany. - Vincent Canfield is a free speech absolutist who runs a hard-to-censor email and VPS service. He used to host servers in Germany but eventually migrated the servers to Romania and Moldova. As of 2026, he lives in Romania as far as I understand. - In 2019, he claimed to have been violently assualted by people in CCC, unprovoked. In particular, he accused Michael Hirdes and provided public footage. - See also: Covered on [hackernews](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21905761), [youtube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W_61YicxOM), [his blog](https://vc.gg/blog/36c3-staff-assaulted-me-for-political-reasons.html), [reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/ccc/comments/ejeztn/36c3_security_attacks_innocent_visitors_over/) - I am assuming Vincent sued these people. I want to know what happened to the lawsuit. This seems an important datapoint for me to understand internet censorship / free speech. text_english/my_research/my_views_on_visakan_veeraswamy.md000644 000765 000024 00000007332 15201411337 025346 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-25 minor edit 2026-05-14 # My views on Visakan Veeraswamy Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - This is a stub article and I might or might not expand. - See also: [I will only persuade or criticise the powerful](./I_will_only_persuade_or_criticise_the_powerful.md). - Visakan is not that powerful yet, however I think he has a non-trivial influence on the minds of people who are seriously considering working on ASI risk, and hence I feel compelled to write about it. - Visakanv is one of my favourite writers on the internet. I like many things about his writings, and am not sharing those here. - However, I have a strong disagreement with him. - One of his core claims is "focus on what you want to see more of" or the unstated corrolary "don't focus on what you don't want to see more of" - Taken to its logical extreme, this basically means you should not fight any zero-sum political battles ever, you should not wage any wars ever. This is obviously an absurd belief. If you think about it for even 60 seconds, you can list out people who started political and social movements and wars that were net good for the world. - The primary way of solving ASI risk that I am optimistic about, at this point, is a direct zero-sum political battle with the people building ASI. - If you tell the public to simply ignore that ASI is being built, and do something more "worthwhile", then ASI will eventually get built regardless (with high probability), and everyone will have to suffer the consequences. - When ASI believers were a tiny group of people in early 2000s, sure, maybe this approach of ignoring them would have worked, atleast for some years. Tiny group needs attention, don't give them attention, this will increase probabibility that the tiny group breaks apart on its own. As of today though, there is too much capital invested towards building ASI, for people building ASI to give a shit about whether you give them attention or not. - "Facts don't care about your feelings", so to speak. The yield of a nuclear bomb does not depend on your feelings about it. Its yield depends on the math of nuclear chain reactions, it does not depend on whether you feel bored or anxious or excited, or whether you pay attention to it or not. In the same way, the consequences of building ASI depend on the math of what is actually being built (yes it is unfortunate we don't understand this math, but there is a math underlying intelligence). - I agree with him that doomerism can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Believe that you can change yourself, and that you can change the world, and there is some chance you might actually change the world in response. If you tell yourself you can't change anything, this increases the chances you won't bother to try to change anything. - I focus my time on the good outcome (mass movement that successfully topples the US AI companies) not the bad outcome (ASI takeover happens, or US AI company CEOs build dictatorship). - I wish Visakan's claims had more examples, and more importantly, **counterexamples** backing them. - I understand that when you are at the frontiers of knowledge, historical anecdotal data counts for only so much. That being said, if you are going to quote historical data to back your case, I think it is fair only if you quote enough examples and counterexamples. I don't want to make strong claims on how Visakan should or shouldn't live his life, but I do want to say that I would find his claims a lot more persuasive if they were backed more rigorously. - I think he is making many claims that are Big if True, and hence I think this would be valuable work to do. - See again - my disagreement above. Maybe he doesn't want to use counterexamples on purpose. I don't know. PaxHeader/persuasion_on_asi_risk_for_mass_audience_should_probably_target_those_undergoing_trauma000644 000765 000024 00000000252 15177753505 042450 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/my_research140 path=text_english/my_research/persuasion_on_asi_risk_for_mass_audience_should_probably_target_those_undergoing_traumatic_life_events.md 30 mtime=1778374469.026915119 persuasion_on_asi_risk_for_mass_audience_should_probably_target_those_undergoing_traumatic_life_ev000644 000765 000024 00000006547 15177753505 042705 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/my_research2026-03-29 # Persuasion on ASI risk for mass audience should probably target those undergoing traumatic life events Disclaimer - **Quick Note** See also - [Four hypotheses for how persuasion works](./four_hypotheses_for_how_persuasion_works.md) - [Morality of persuasion around ASI risk](./morality_of_persuasion_around_asi_risk.md) How seriously should you take this post? - I have spent atleast a few months unsuccessfully running a youtube channel, organising multiple protests solo and attempting in-person persuasion. I have also read some books about previous protest and civil disobedience movements. - I am probably better at persuasion than the average person on LW. However, I don't think I am that good at it if you compare me to people who are actually good at persuasion. I think there are **many** levels of skill far above mine. If you are doing persuasion full-time and you're actually good at it, you'll quickly become way better than me and I will no longer have any useful advice for you. Main - **If you are after the general public as your target audience for ASI risk discourse, one strong strategy is just targeting people who are encountering traumatic life events. The public is likely to change the core of their worldview only when they personally suffer.** It is probably not enough to just offer a new additional piece of info to them, you probably have to shatter their worldview completely for ASI risk to go mainstream. - **Money** - Lack of money is a major reason people suffer. An important target audience for your persuasion could be those undergoing job loss due to AI. It is unclear as of 2026-03 how much job loss will happen before ASI if built. It is also unclear which politician will get enough votes to attempt something UBI-like. Obviously whoever attempts something UBI-like will get a lot of votes that way (regardless of whether this is good for the economy or for the political equilibrium or whatever). Literally buying your voters is very common in many countries across the world (including in India where I live). - **Social ostracism** - Differences in political opinion with your friends/family is a common reason (but not the only reason) for social ostracism. Differences of opinion with your friends/family on the topics of sex/family/parenting is a common reason (but not the only reason) for differences in political opinion. If you are truly politically radical, you will not be able to tolerate close relationships with people who don't get the case for ASI risk, and if enough people are this radical, then people who don't get the case for ASI risk will increasingly feel ostracised from various niches in society. I can't give you strong advice or whether you should or shouldn't be this radical. I will note however, that this is a major pathway by which both socially left-leaning and socially right-leaning ideology spread in society. - You can also ofcourse target people whose traumatic life events have nothing to do with ASI risk, and doompill them. - You don't have to pick the general public as your target audience for ASI risk discourse ofcourse. **Successfully persuading literally any audience whatsoever is better than none.** If you reach a million powerless people (in any political demographic whatsoever) or convert even a few major politicians/billionaires, you will be one of the most impactful people in this entire space. text_english/my_research/blockchain_prizes_for_unsolved_math_problems.md000644 000765 000024 00000001503 15262151666 030232 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-10-09 # Blockchain prizes for unsolved math problems Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - Now that formal verification is finally taking off (because of AI), it is worth pointing out that you can provide prizes for solutions to unsolved math problems, via ethereum smart contracts that formally verify the proofs to release the reward. - Anyone can promise to reward money and anyone can claim it. - You can allow the people providing the reward to unstake their money via a slow timelock (or don't allow to them to unstake at all), whereas people claiming the rewards can claim instantly. If ASI gets built, this won't matter. If AI progresses stalls, it could matter. P.S. Famous crypto scammer Justin Sun already has a partial version of this running. I want it to run on ethereum though, not tron, for obvious reasons. text_english/my_research/why_were_cypherpunks_and_extropians_better_than_todays_social_media.md000644 000765 000024 00000003702 15211717356 035056 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-09 # Why were cypherpunks and extropians better than today's social media? Disclaimer - **Thinking aloud, may not endorse after a lot of thought** Main - Why were cypherpunks and extropians mailing list better experiences than to today's twitter, substack, hackernews, lesswrong, etc? Some guesses: - No dislike or like button. You could disengage from bad content but you couldn't dunk on it as easily. You had to actually read content first, to decide if it was good or bad. - Members did not have huge networth (capital) or social media following (attention) so there was less instrumental reason to write posts. Curiosity hence became the driver of a higher fraction of posts. - Small group not large group. - Software for the forum was not trivial to use. Even today, github issue threads are higher quality than hackernews threads which in turn are higher quality than discord or reddit or similar. Cypherpunks went further than this, and explicitly had a motto "cypherpunks write code." Not only did this gatekeep the discussion to software developers, but it also ensured their ideas could make more contact with reality. - Forum moderators and web hosts had not yet become targets for all sorts of political fuckery. Forum commentors had not yet become targets for all sorts of political fuckery. - They were the only good forums for their topic, and did not face competition from other forums. Today it is trivial to spawn a low effort discord or reddit, to compete with an existing forum. - There did not exist as many Big Tech companies to occupy the time of the world's best software developers with either pointless busywork or money-making. These people felt they had more free time to chitchat on a forum. - Both projects were significantly more naive about the downsides of the new projects they were attempting. There are still True Believers of bitcoin and the singularity today, but also many more people who notice downsides. text_english/my_research/._cheap_85_inch_tvs_could_increase_popularity_of_remote_work.md000644 000765 000024 00000000260 15247744317 033201 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 Mac OS X  2~ATTRcom.apple.lastuseddate#PSzިj;/text_english/my_research/PaxHeader/cheap_85_inch_tvs_could_increase_popularity_of_remote_work.md000644 000765 000024 00000000236 15247744317 034740 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 30 mtime=1788856527.319276865 69 LIBARCHIVE.xattr.com.apple.lastuseddate#PS=et6oagAAAAA7sJEvAAAAAA 59 SCHILY.xattr.com.apple.lastuseddate#PS=zިj;/ text_english/my_research/cheap_85_inch_tvs_could_increase_popularity_of_remote_work.md000644 000765 000024 00000001232 15247744317 032764 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-08 # Cheap 85 inch TVs could increase popularity of remote work Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - I still expect in-person to be best for most tech companies, but I think cheap 85 inch TVs will make remote work more popular. - You want a screen big enough and high res enough that it can show an entire room, not just the upper half of someone's body. That is when you can do things like have dinner with someone or play music or similar, remotely. Non-work bonding activites tend to be important even for people you work with. - [Link to historical TV prices](https://www.cablecompare.com/blog/the-average-cost-of-a-tv-how-has-it-changed-over-time) text_english/my_research/downsides_of_doing_asi_alignment_safety_control_research.md000644 000765 000024 00000017077 15177753505 032606 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-04-20 minor edit 2026-05-08 # Downsides of doing ASI alignment/safety/control research Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - target audience - people planning to work on or already working on ASI alignment/safety/control research - Trust yourself - If you are a good researcher you should ultimately reach the frontier of knowledge, and then trust your intuition, not mine. - I don't work full-time on this problem, so I have not put as much effort into understanding pros/cons as someone actually work on it full-time could put in. That is ultimately your responsibility not mine. - If you don't agree with any of the points I make below, but also you can't see clear counterarguments, this should ring a big alarm bell in your head. ## Downsides of doing alignment research - A lot of alignment/safety/control research is dual use - In particular, a lot of interpretability and evals work is like this. If you obtain any useful signal whatsoever about what the AI model is actually doing or thinking, there's often a way to use this signal as part of a training regime to get even more capable models using less compute. Evals/Benchmarks try to understand the AI model output better, interpretability tries to understand the AI model thinking, better understanding of either of these can generally be converted into more efficient capabilities technique. - Examples: RLHF was invented by Paul Christiano and others as an alignment technique, but has ended up a capabilities advance. GPT-3.5 allowed AI companies to raise huge amounts of capital and eyeballs. Benchmarks like HLE by Dan Hendrycks or ARC-AGI by Francois Chollet end up explicit optimisation targets for the AI companies, and reduce the researcher time and capital these companies would otherwise have to put into building good benchmarks. - Maybe there are ways to to work on alignment/safety/control that are not dual use, I don't think it is impossible. - Some people think they will keep their alignment research secret. In current political situation, I think keeping your dual use work secret is not really going to work over the long run, because the heads of the intelligence agencies of your country can demand that you hand over these secrets to them whenever they like. And heads of AI companies are increasingly powerful enough that they can work with the heads of intelligence agencies directly. (This excludes all the much easier ways your secrets can leak, like one of your researchers quitting and joining a capabilities org, one of your researchers telling the secrets to their loved ones, one of your researchers' machines getting hacked, and so on.) - If you solve alignment/safety/control, you probably get a permanent global dictatorship. - Whoever gets the first controlled ASI will probably use it to overthrow both the US and Chinese govts and establish their own permanent global dictatorship. This person might be Amodei or Hassabis or Altman or Hassabis or the current NSA director or someone else, I am not actually sure. They could use automated militaries or hyperpersuasion, or good old fashioned bribes, or a number of other ways to slowly or quickly capture all geopolitical power. - I still think permanent global dictatorship is better than human extinction, so I would still prefer work to happen on AI alignment/safety/control. But it is worth remembering that this is the best case outcome of someone who only works on technical problems not political ones. - Short timelines - Solving both theoretical and empirical alignment within 5 years seems extremely hard given previous track record of both theoretical and empirical work. - You have to solve both theoretical and empirical problems. The final output of alignment being "solved" has to be a pytorch repo, not a philosophy paper. If you write a philosophy paper, someone needs to also figure out how to convert this into a pytorch repo. - Maybe some genius can crack important problems in the field anyway, zero-to-one, never say never. ## Downsides of doing alignment research funded by Dario Amodei or Dustin Moskowitz or Jaan Tallin - (As of 2026-04, there is very little funding for ASI alignment/safety/control that is truly independent of the AI companies themselves. Most of it is provided by Amodei/Moskowitz/Tallin, who are all basically allied and never criticise each other.) - Friendships with capabilities researchers - Maybe the biggest downside is that you might end up building friendships with the mass murderers at the AI companies who are advancing capabilities. I think it is a very bad decision to try to make friendships with these people. This is a huge conflict of interest. - It doesn't matter if they are ignorant or malevolent when it comes to the risks. - Befriending these people will make it much harder for you to be open to feedback on why these people are mass murderers, or to yourself take actions that make life worse for these people. For instance, you might find it harder to publicly criticise their work, or shame them on social media, or advocate for their salaries and associated high status titles to be taken away. - Even the most docile non-violent legally enacted way of actually shutting down capabilities is going to cause a lot of capabilities researchers to suffer loss of meaning in life, loss of self-respect and loss of respect in the eyes of other people. And based on my understanding of how politics, I also don't expect the anti-ASI movement to win so easily. It is probably going to involve a lot of actively humilitiating these people online and irl, actively getting the entire public to hate these people, actively throwing atleast a few of these people in prison just as an example to set to everyone else, and so on. If these people are your friends, you will feel emotionally conflicted and find it hard to support any of this. (Disclaimer - I am not a expert politician, so also don't trust my judgement too much here.) - Your funder can censor your words, including criticism of capabilities work. - Your funder can also censor criticism of capabilities work or alignment work. This can be very blatant ("dont criticise XYZ") or subtle (the framing of words used in your final research output is less critical than actually required). - People like Amodei and Altman and so on are **extremely** good at politics. If you suck at politics yourself, you might not even be aware how high the skill ceiling for politics is. There is a long list of ways they can use to try to censor you besides the most obvious one of telling you "dont criticise XYZ or you lose funding". As just one example, they can reverse-engineer your friends' psychology to figure out what narrative appeals to them, use the right words to affect your friends' emotional state, then this could affect your emotional state. All these changes in emotional state can happen completely independent of what the actual ground truth about any given research actually is. (The yield of an atomic bomb doesn't depend on the feelings of those deploying it, the same goes for the outcomes of deploying ASI.) - Most people at AI companies have signed legal agreements that prevent them from criticising work. I expect if AI capabilities continue to increase, a lot of research may even get classified by the intelligence agencies, which significantly increases the stakes. Furthermore, if your country enters a hot war or cold war or civil war (this could happen due to capabilities advances), then the law will especially not matter, expect people to be imprisoned on the spot with no fair trial and high levels of paranoia and so on. All this makes it much easier to censor you. - ??? text_english/my_research/open_source_search_summary.md000644 000765 000024 00000027714 15177753505 024504 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2025-09-01 # Open Source Search (Summary) Disclaimer - I support a complete ban on frontier AI R&D. This app requiring AI doesn't change that. If the ban is restrictive enough to also prevent the app decsribed below from being built, I might be okay with that. ## Summary - This document describes how to build an open source search engine for the entire internet, that runs on a residential server - As of 2025 it'll cost between $100k-$1M to build and host this server. This cost will reduce with every passing year, as GPU, RAM and disk prices reduce. - Most expensive step is GPU capex to generate embeddings for the entire internet. - Most steps can be done using low-complexity software such as bash scripts (`curl --multi`, `htmlq -tw`, `curl -X "$LLM_URL"`, etc) ## Main Why? - I realised my posts on this topic are sprawling all over the place, without one post to summarise it all. Hence this post. - If someone donates me $1M I might consider building this. I've written code for more than half the steps, and no step here seems impossibly hard. ## Use cases of open source search - Censorship-resistant backups - aka internet with no delete button aka Liu Cixin's dark forest - Any data that reaches any server may end up backed up by people across multiple countries forever. - You can read my other posts for more on the implications of censorship-resistant backups and discovery. - Censorship-resistant discovery - Any data that reaches any server may end up searchable by everyone forever. - Currently each country's govt bans channels and websites that they find threatening. It is harder to block a torrent of a qdrant snapshot, than to block a static list of IP addresses and domains. Will reduce cost-of-entry/exit for a new youtuber. - Since youtubers can potentially run for govt, subscribing to a youtuber is a (weak) vote for their govt. - Privacy-preserving search - In theory, it will become possible to run searches on an airgapped tails machine. Search indices can be stored on read-only media and memory can wiped on reboot. - As of 2025, a handful of intelligence agencies have exclusive access to everyone's thoughts, as everyone is dependent on centrally hosted search engines. This could change. - Search for jobs, houses, friends, partners, etc without relying on a tech company. - Most tech companies exist just to provide search functionality, and the incentives and culture so that both sides upload their data online. - Not having to rely on them would mean better incentives and culture can be set. Lower cost-of-exit. - Niche discovery - Higher quality search (due to LLMs) makes it easier to connect people interested in a niche. Might be able to spawn subcommunities more easily based on shared thoughts or actions. - Attention on internet currently is very heavy-tailed, few youtubers and social media companies have all of Earth's attention. This phenomena might weaken. - Governance - Can build political applications such as liquid democracy, distributed social media, etc if no politically or economically motivated group can censor data or alter search rankings or upvote counts. ## Similar projects (incomplete list, as of 2025-08 I'm not affiliated with any project listed here) - [Wilson Lin's search engine](https://blog.wilsonl.in/search-engine/) - Internet Archive, CommonCrawl, gotham-grabber by Freedom of the Press Foundation - torrent, IPFS, filecoin, veilid - long list of (mostly failed) decentralised social media projects - [seirdy's blog](https://seirdy.one/posts/2021/03/10/search-engines-with-own-indexes/#rationale) ## Final output (after steps 0 to 5) - Distribute a torrent of the plaintext and the embedding search database snapshots (qdrant or dragonflyDB or similar) as mentioned below. - Distribute code for all steps of the pipeline mentioned below. Torrent the code if github or similar website removes it from their site. ## Step 0: Estimate hardware costs in 2025 **Important:** All these prices are dropping exponentially. Try forecasting prices in 2030 or 2035. We will eventually end up with entire text internet stored in your pocket. Prices taken from hetzner server auction, vast.ai, aws s3 deep archive Rented - Compute/Memory - CPU compute = ($4/thread/mo) / (3.5 GHz/thread) = $1.1/B cycles = $0.07/GFLOP - CPU RAM = $0.40/GB/mo - CPU throughput = infinity, either disk or network throughput is the botteleneck - GPU compute = ($1.40/h) / (50 TFLOP/s) = $0.008/PFLOP - GPU RAM = $10/GB/mo - GPU throughput = ($2/h) / (50 GB/s) = $28/TB - Storage - SSD = $10/TB/mo - HDD = $2/TB/mo - Tape = $1/TB/mo - SSD throughput = ($20/mo) / (0.5 GB/s) = $16/PB - HDD throughput = ($0.50/mo) / (100 MB/s) = $2/TB - Network - Network throughput = ($48/mo) / (10 gbps) = $0.015/TB Self-hosted - typically 1-100x cheaper than cloud - price gap between cloud and rented is largest for storage, compared to cloud or memory - Extreme examples - SSD throughput = ($300/5y) / (10 GB/s) = $0.20/PB - this is 80x cheaper than rented - Tape (second-hand LTO-9) = $2/TB/30y = $0.0055/TB/mo - this is 180x cheaper than rented ## Estimate storage required - In theory it is possible to do all the steps below in batches, so that a single node with 8 TB RAID0 is sufficient to crawl, extract, generate indices and store indices for 2 PB of internet plaintext. - In practice you will likely use a network-based filesystem like ceph. All steps below are fully parallelisable, so the separate nodes don't need throughput between them. - Raw plaintext can be stored on second-hand LTO-9 tapes ## Step 1: Crawling Figures taken from commoncrawl and internet archive - Total urls = 1T urls Figures taken from my own (bad) benchmark - Crawl rate > (30 HTTP headers / s) / (4 cores) = (~100M headers / mo) / (4 cores) - Compute required < (1T headers) / (25M headers/mo/core) = 40k core mo - Compute cost < 40k core mo * $4/core/mo = $160k - Requesting header involves DNS lookup, TCP handshake, TLS handshake. - TLS handshake requires compute to multiply prime numbers, this is the likely real bottleneck. (Not tested.) - Linux allows increasing number of sockets beyond 4096, network buffer has enough space to manage this. Using 10s timeout and 30 headers/s => 300 connections open at once - Commoncrawl CDX files provide initial 1T urls from which to seed the crawl. Software - parallel curl requests is sufficient, nothing fancy. (Not tested on full dataset) ## Prioritised public datasets If you can't do the entire internet, here's some datasets you might want to prioritise: - personal blogs - searchmysite.net 3k blogs, 512kb.club blogs, substack, livejournal - video transcripts - youtube, rumble, rutube, bilibili, youku - atleast top 10k channels each by subscriber count. use yt-dlp or similar to scrape. - forums - hackernews, reddit, lesswrong, stackexchange - books, papers - arxiv, libgen, wikipedia - code - github - leaked datasets - wikileaks, distributed denial of secrets - social media - discord public (discord unveiled) and private, insta public and private, twitter public and private etc - takes effort to get scrapes **It is important to do most of them not just few, otherwise your app won't be competitive with existing apps.** ## Private datasets Also provide software to create private datasets - Collect data of every keystroke on private machine. Retrieved using keylogger - Collect data of all previous AI inputs and outputs, both local LLM calls and API calls. Retrieved by sniffing network traffic locally. - Collect data from every webpage visited on private machine. Retrieved through browser cache directory. - Collect data from all user-generated files on private machine. Retrieved directly. Each user will likely have to individually create their own private dataset, as some of this data may not be present in any public dataset. ## Step 2: Plaintext extraction Figures taken from commoncrawl and internet archive Data size - Total plaintext on internet = 2 PB - Google and NSA datacenters are currently 10,000 PB, mostly for storing video - Theoretical max plaintext = (10k words /day/person) * 5 bits/word * 8B people * 100y = 1,700 PB - Theoretical max video (downsampling/embedding gen to 100 bytes/s using AI) = 100 B/s * 8B people * 100y = 2,000,000 PB - video downsampling cost not considered Plaintext extraction cost - compute required to extract plaintext from a webpage, is typically less than compute required for the TLS initialisation for that webpage - all processing can occur in RAM to avoid hitting disk I/O bottleneck. Software - `do something | htmlq -tw | do something` ## Step 3: Embedding generation Algorithm used - BM25 or similar - LLM embedding search - searches concepts not keywords - significantly outperforms BM25, although ideal system uses both Figures taken from openai text-embedding-3-small Embedding generation cost - openai price = $0.01/1M input tokens - assume 200 tokens per chunk, no overlap between chunks - open source naive price = 175B params * $0.008/PFLOP * 1 FLOP/param/output vector / (200 input tokens/ output vector) = $0.007/1M input tokens - Embedding generation cost = $0.01/1M input tokens * 2 PB * (1 input token/ 5 bytes) = $4.2M Performance - as of 2025, text-embedding-3-small outperforms many models that are overfit to MTEB - also its cheaper than hosting yourself Software - Bash pipelines is sufficient ## Step 4: Embedding search Algorithm used, Search time - Search in RAM or disk - RAM search is within few seconds - might be optimisable to below 100 ms, but will require custom work on RAM heap management - Disk search is bottlenecked by disk throughput - >8 GB/s SSDs are available locally but not on cloud. - [FAISS index factory by Pinecone](https://www.pinecone.io/learn/series/faiss/composite-indexes/) - different algos use different bytes/weight, and give different search times and recall. - Graph-based algos like HNSW and pinecone proprietary algos outperform geometric algos like LSH, k-means clustering, product quantisation, etc - Future algos - Seems likely that a better graph algo than HNSW will be discovered in next few years. - My basic intuition is you want to put 1T vectors into 1M clusters with 1M vectors each, then have a fast way to check which cluster is likely to contain matches to query vector. Then brute force search those clusters. Software - One-click software - dragonflyDB for RAM, qdrant for disk - Can load databases using bash pipelines - As of 2025, many other implementations exist, require more work to use. ## Search filters - Tags based on data source - User can specify they only want to search reddit or they only want to search their own keylogs etc - Search filter based on tag based on data source is important - Tags based on content - Can use the embeddings to generate automated tags: politics, sports, tech, etc - Search filter based on tag based on content is important - Timestamps - Search filter based on time interval is important ## Latency If your hosting the app locally for your own use, latency does not matter, only search time matters. If you're hosting it for other people to use, latency can be relevant, and it may make sense to host multiple edge servers. - Human body latency - Nerve conduction latency = 1m / (100 m/s) = 10 ms - Optical latency = (90 fps)^(-1) = 10 ms - Computer latency - CPU, RAM, disk, GPU, I/O device latencies are much below 10 ms - Network latency is 100 ms for round-trip EU to US, due to speed of light. - 1 gbps fibre optic now popular, sufficient to transmit HD video at below 10 ms latency with no encoding or compression - 3D or VR data still can't be sent uncompressed ## Step 5: Tool use Make sure AI can also make searches to the embedding search databases. For example you can put a wrapper in front of qdrant to convert it into an MCP server. Reasoning models can reason about the source and context of any given piece of information, and estimate how likely it is to match ground-truth. text_english/my_research/us_govt_whistleblower_database.md000644 000765 000024 00000214272 15177753505 025342 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2025-10-17 # US Govt Whistleblower Database **Disclaimer** - **Incomplete** - All information here is based on public record - **Contains politically sensitive info** **What?** - Collecting (mostly) fact-checked of previous US govt whistleblowers. **Who?** - Primary target audience: Potential whistleblowers in future. Especially focussed on those working at AI companies. **Why?** - Might aid future whistleblowers, or people directly working with them, or people indirectly supporting them. - Unknown unknown reasons. I can't pre-emptively guess every way this resource might be used in future. ## Database categories Since there are many people who become sources, it is useful to categorise them. I have categorised them as follows based on intent, action and consequences. categories based on intent - (categorising based on intended beneficiary not intended recipient) - whistleblowers - intended beneficiary: perceived public interest - intended recipient of info: usually public. sometimes specific people acting in public interest such as judges or congressmen. - leakers - intended beneficiary: perceived personal gain but not money (romantic interest, personal rivalry, social status, etc) - intended recipient of info: anyone - spies - intended beneficiary: perceived value-alignment with foreign govt or ideology, or money - intended recipient of info: intelligence service of foreign govt categories based on action - leaked classified documents - did not leak classified documents, but may have leaked classified information - did not leak classified documents or information categories based on consequences - was imprisoned - was not imprisoned - (not categorising based on other consequences such as social ostracism, financial loss, etc) ## Some notes and disclaimers (about the database below) About classification - Background info - US classification levels: CONFIDENTIAL < SECRET < TOP SECRET < TOP SECRET/SCI - As of 2022-09-30, public claim is that 1.35 million people have TOP SECRET security clearance. - TS/SCI indicates a compartment which only few named individuals can access, not everyone with a TOP SECRET security clearance. Different documents can belong to different compartments. A compartment can be as small as 10 people. - Conclusion - in many whistleblower cases, seems unclear if classification status was SECRET or TOP SECRET at time of leak About key dates recorded - date of first transmission of a document to a second person (there could be multiple documents sent on different dates) - date of first public publication of a document (there could be multiple documents published on different dates) - date of arrest - date of public revealing of whistleblower's identity - date of being released from prison About consequences on social circle - Typical consequences once identity is publicly out - Family members are interrogated, house raided and wiretapped. - Family members face significant legal expenses. Almost always, a defence fund is raised with donations from non-profits and the general public. - Family members are verbally harassed in-person and online. - Multiple people in extended social circle cut off contact. A common reason is to avoid being involved in the investigation. - Once imprisoned, prison visits are allowed for immediate family members. - Family members are not imprisoned. - Unless specified otherwise, it is IMO a reasonable assumption that all of the above consequences occured in every single case of US govt whistleblowers/leakers who were imprisoned. There may or may not be documented proof for all of the consequences. - Usually there is more documented proof if the whistleblower chose to talk to journalists or the general public about the challenges they faced. Usually law enforcement or intelligence did not make information public against the will of the whistleblower. About opsec mistakes - Remember parallel construction of a chain of evidence is common, what evidence is presented in court may not be how law enforcement first found out the act occurred. I have tried sticking to court evidence and not speculating too much beyond it. - Remember evidence presented in court faces selection effects and framing effects due the adversarial nature of a court trial. About journalists - This list is **not** an endorsement of the values or capabilities of any specific journalists. It only provides historical fact-checked information. - Information recorded - Date, title, authors, media house of first publication - Link to original copy of first publication, or a mirror if possible - Whether publication contains original documents - Whether journalists and editors knew identity of the source - Some journalists later quit the orgs they worked at, at the time of the leak. Unless stated otherwise, I have specified the org they worked for at the the time of the leak. - Some articles may have older edits or link urls. Internet Archive Wayback Machine is one possible place you can check for this. - In multiple cases there is public record of a journalist being informed of the source identity but no public record of the editor being informed. - Speculation by me (Samuel): It is highly likely that if a journalist knows the identity of a source, the editor will pressurise the journalist to inform them as the editor. - Editor's reputation is affected if the journalist invents fake information claiming an anonymous source, and this sequence of events becomes public later. Editor's reputation is affected if the source's reputation is negative for the editor in some way (for example they're a criminal or spy), and the source's identity or reputation becomes public later. - As per AP policy as of 2025, a reportor/journalist must inform the editor of the identities of any sources. - As per Fox News policy as of 2025, no mandatory requirement for reporter/journalist to share the identity of a source with the editors. About lawyers - This list is **not** an endorsement of the values or capabilities of any specific lawyer. It only provides historical fact-checked information. - Some minor details may be incorrect. I lack a formal legal background. ## Category A: US govt whistleblowers/leakers who leaked classified documents and were not imprisoned Category A (sorted by date) - Edward Joseph Snowden - still wanted for arrest - Daniel Ellsberg, Anthony (Tony) J. Russo Jr. ### Classification status Category A, classification status of leaked info (sorted by date) - Edward Joseph Snowden - 100,000-2,000,000 documents (exact number is not public record), many of which were TOP SECRET/SCI - Daniel Ellsberg, Anthony (Tony) J. Russo Jr. - TOP SECRET ### Key dates Category A, key dates (sorted by date) - Edward Joseph Snowden - first transmission 2013-01 to 2013-06 (date is not public record), flight from Hawaii US to Hong Kong 2013-05-10, first major transmission 2013-06-02, first publication 2013-06-05, public identity 2013-06-09, flight from Hong Kong to Moscow 2013-06-23, first asylum request made 2013-06-23, first asylum granted (by russia) 2013-08-01, citizenship granted (by russia) 2022-09-26 - Daniel Ellsberg, Anthony (Tony) J. Russo Jr. - first involvement of an unauthorised person (Anthony (Tony) J. Russo Jr.) 1969-10-01, transmission to US senator 1969-10 (??? exact date unclear), first transmission to journalist 1971-03-02, first publication 1971-06-13, arrest 1971-06-28, released on bond 1971-06-28, case dismissed 1973-05-11 ### Social circle Category A, consequences on social circle - Edward Joseph Snowden - Documented social circle at time of leak: Father, mother, (divorced multiple years before the leak), 1 sister, girlfriend (now wife as of 2025-06), no children (2 children as of 2025-06) - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation, polygraph, wiretap, significant legal expenses, online harassment - Documented visits in asylum: Father visited on 2013-10-10, girlfriend (now wife) permanently shifted to moscow in 2014-07 (possibly 2014-07-15 ??? exact date not clear), multiple in-person visits by journalists and lawyers since 2013-06, multiple video calls by journalists. No public record indicating mother ever visited him after the leak. (??? seems unclear) - Misc - Snowden's family members working for US govt kept their jobs but with no further promotions. - Snowden had two children with his wife in Russia and they still live together in Russia as of 2025-07. - Daniel Ellsberg - Documented social circle at time of leak: Father, wife (married on 1970-08-08, during leak), siblings unknown (??? seems unclear), mother dead, ex-wife (divorced), 2 children from ex-wife (later had 1 child from wife) - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation, wiretap, significant legal expenses, in-person harassment by FBI agents, cut off by extended circle - Documented visits: After case dismissal: Visited by children and step-children. Visited by multiple friends and anti-war activists. Visited by multiple journalists. Significant surveillance by FBI and NSA continued during this time frame. - Misc - Psychiatrist's office was (illegally) broken into under direction of Howard Hunt, CIA officer, to obtain evidence so that Ellsberg could deemed mentally unfit for trial. - Daniel Ellsberg's father initially disowned him for this decision to leak the documents, but may have later changed his mind. (??? exact details not clear) - Daniel Ellsberg's son later claimed parents had strained marriage for many years and he had less contact with his father. ### Opsec mistakes Category A, opsec mistakes - todo ### Journalism Category A, journalists they worked with - Edward Joseph Snowden - First publication: [NSA collecting phone records of millions ..., The Guardian, 2013-06-05](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order) - Also published: [US, British intelligence mining data from ..., Washington Post, 2013-06-07](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html) - Glenn Greenwald, Janine Gibson (editor, US), Alan Rusbridger, (editor, UK) - The Guardian - Laura Poitras, Barton Gellman, Anne E Kornblut (editor) - Washington Post - Gleen Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill knew the identity of the source before publishing. Janine Gibson and Alan Rusbridger knew that Greenwald was meeting an anonymous source in Hong Kong, but no public record confirming they knew the identity of the source. - Speculation by me (Samuel): It is highly likely they knew the identity of the source. - Laura Poitras and Barton Gellman knew the identity of source before publishing. No public record confirming Anne E Kornblut or other Washington Post editors knew identity of source before publishing. - todo - more research on this topic - [Github archive by iamcryptoki containing documents published publicly from 2013 to 2018](https://github.com/iamcryptoki/snowden-archive). - Most of the 100,000-2,000,000 documents leaked by Snowden have never been published publicly. Public record is that only a handful of journalists (listed above) have access to a copy of the full set of documents. - [Speculation by electrospaces.net on who all have access as of 2019](https://www.electrospaces.net/2019/04/the-snowden-files-where-are-they-and.html) - todo - more research on this topic - Daniel Ellsberg - First publication: [Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces 3 Decades of Growing U.S. Involvement, The New York Times, 1971-06-13, weekly issue](https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1971/06/13/issue.html) - Neil Sheehan, other team members, Abe Rosenthal (editor) - The New York Times - Newspaper contained only small excerpts per issue, total 9 issues contained excerpts. - Neil Sheehan knew the identity of the source. As per public record, Neil Sheehan negotiated with Abe Rosenthal (managing editor) to ensure that the story could be published without the latter being informed of the identity of source. - Another publication: [Documents Reveal U.S. Effort in '51 To Delay Viet Election, Washington Post, 1971-06-18](???) - Ben Bagdikian, other team members, Ben Bradlee (editor) - Washington Post - Ellsberg provided Bagdikian with a copy on 1971-06-16, during the FBI manhunt. - Ben Bagdikian provided a copy to Senator Mike Gravel on 1971-06-26. 4100 out of ~7000 pages were published by Senator Mike Gravel on 1971-06-29 to Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. - Ben Bagdikian knew the identity of the source. No public info confirming Ben Bradlee or others at WaPo knew the identity of the source. - More research on this topic - todo - [Unredacted copy of Pentagon Papers by released by US govt, 2001-06-13](https://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers) ### Law Category A, lawyers they worked with - Edward Joseph Snowden - lawyers for: No trial occurred, only asylum requests: Ben Wizner (US, ACLU Director), Jesselyn Radack (US, WHISPer Director), Robert Tibbo (Hong Kong), Jonathan Man (Hong Kong), Albert Ho Chun-yan (Hong Kong), Anatoly Kucherena (Russia), Plato Cacheris (US), Wolfgang Kaleck (Germany/EU), William Bourdoun (France/EU), Marcel Bosonnet (Switzerland), Gonzalo Boye (Chile), Baltasar Garzón (Spain/Chile, Wikileaks international legal head), Halvard Helle (Norway), Emanuel Feinberg (Norway), other anonymous lawyer-advisors - lawyers against: No trial occurred: Neil H. MacBride, Eric H. Holder Jr. - Civil suit over book published: G. Zachary Terwilliger, Jody Hunt, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Jeffrey A. Rosen, Lauren A. Wetzler, R. Trent McCotter - Daniel Ellsberg - lawyers for: Leonard Boudin, Charles Nesson, Leonard Weinglass - lawyers representing NYT: Daniel Sheehan, Floyd Abrams - lawyers against: David Nissen, Warren P. Reese, Richard J. Barry, Joseph L. Tauro, Erwin Nathaniel Griswold Category A, public fundraising for legal defence - Edward Joseph Snowden - Yes (via Freedom of the Press Foundation) - Daniel Ellsberg - Yes ### Misc Category A, miscellaneous information - Edward Joseph Snowden - empty - Daniel Ellsberg - G Gordon Liddy, ex-FBI ex-Army, claims Howard Hunt (who broke into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office) also planned to induce LSD overdose to deem Ellsberg mentally unfit. - Wiretap also performed without warrant. Judge dismissed case due to extensive illegal evidence gathering. - Robert L. Meyer, US attorney, was forced to resign for refusing to pursue case against Daniel Ellsberg ## Category B: US govt whistleblowers/leakers who leaked classified documents and were imprisoned Category B (sorted by date) - Jack Douglas Teixeira - Daniel Everette Hale - Reality Leigh Winner - Terry J Albury - Joshua Adam Schulte - James Hitselberger - Donald Sachtleben - Chelsea Elizabeth Manning - Shamai Kedem Leibowitz - Samuel Loring Morison ### Classification status Category B, classification status of leaked info (sorted by date) - Jack Douglas Teixeira - classified at time of leak - most documents TOP SECRET/SCI (TOP SECRET//HCS-P/SI-G/TK//NOFORN or Top Secret//SI//NOFORN//FISA ???), some documents SECRET//REL FVEY - remains classified as of 2025, US govt has confirmed authenticity of some documents - Daniel Everette Hale - classified at time of leak - some documents TOP SECRET (TOP SECRET//SI//NOFORN), other documents SECRET - remains classified as of 2025 - Reality Leigh Winner - classified at time of leak - TOP SECRET//SI//ORCON/NOFORN - remains classified as of 2025 - Terry J Albury - classified at time of leak - some documents SECRET, some documents CONFIDENTIAL, other documents unclassified, at time of leak (??? seems unclear) - remains classified as of 2025 - Joshua Adam Schulte - classified at time of leak - some documents SECRET, some documents TOP SECRET or TOP SECRET/SCI (??? seems unclear), operational details of vault7 not leaked at all - remains classified as of 2025 - James Hitselberger - classified at time of leak - SECRET - remains classified as of 2025 - Donald Sachtleben - classified at time of leak - main documents TOP SECRET // SCI, other documents SECRET - remains classified as of 2025. Summarised details confirmed in press interviews. - Chelsea Elizabeth Manning - classified at time of leak - iraq war logs SECRET//NOFORN, guantanamo bay SECRET//NOFORN, collateral murder video SECRET, diplomatic cables CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET or TOP SECRET (??? seems unclear) - Remains classified as of 2025: iraq war logs, guantanmo bay documents, collateral murder video - Some redacted documents declassified as of 2025: Diplomatic cables - Shamai Kedem Leibowitz - classified at time of leak - SECRET - remains classified as of 2025 - Samuel Loring Morison - classified at time of leak - TOP SECRET or SECRET (??? seems unclear) - some lower resolution photos similar to leaked photos declassified as of 2025 ### Key dates Category B, key dates (sorted by date) - Jack Douglas Teixeira - first transmission to semi-public discord 2022-02, first transmission to journalist likely 2022-12 (discord server logs 2022-02 to 2022-12 not publicly available), publication to wide audience 2023-04-06, public identity 2023-04-13, arrest 2023-04-13, not released as of 2025-06 - Daniel Everette Hale - first transmission 2014-05 (multiple messages sent, exact date of first message containing classified document is not public record), first publication 2015-10-15, arrest 2019-05-09, public identity 2019-05-09, released 2025-07-04 - Reality Leigh Winner - first transmission 2017-05-09, arrest 2017-06-03, first publication 2017-06-05, public identity 2017-06-05, released 2021-06-02 - Terry J Albury - first transmission 2016-02, first publication 2017-01-31, arrest 2018-03-28, public identity 2018-03-29, released 2020-11 - Joshua Adam Schulte - first transmission 2016-04 (exact date not in public record), first publication 2017-03-07, arrest on allegedly unrelated charge 2017-08-24, public identity as a suspected whistleblower 2018-05-15, public identity as whistleblower confirmed 2018-06-18, not released as of 2025-06 - James Hitselberger - first transmission 2012-04-11, no publication, arrest 2012-10-25, public identity 2012-10-25, released 2014-07 - Donald Sachtleben - first transmission 2012-04-30, first publication 2012-05-07, arrest on allegedly unrelated charges 2012-05-11, indicted as whistleblower 2013-09-23, public identity 2013-09-23, released 2022 (??? exact date not clear) - Chelsea Elizabeth Manning - first transmission 2010-01 (as per chelsea's claims, 2010-02 is publicly documented), first publication 2010-02-18, arrest 2010-05-27, public identity 2010-06-07, released 2017-01-17 - Shamai Kedem Leibowitz - first transmission 2009-01 (exact date unclear, may not be public record), first publication 2009-03-26, house raid 2009-04 (exact date unclear, may not be public record), final arrest 2009-12-17, public identity 2009-12-17, released 2012-01 (exact date unclear) - Samuel Loring Morison - first transmission 1984-07 (??? exact date within 1984-07 not clear), first publication 1984-08-07, arrest 1984-10-01, public identity 1984-10-01, released 1988 (??? exact date unclear) ### Social circle Category B, consequences on social circle (only done surface-level research so far) - Jack Douglas Teixeira - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Step-father, mother, biological father, 1 step-brother, 1 step-sister, 1 half-sister, girlfriend - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation, online harassment of parents - Documented prison visits: no info available - Misc: gave TV interview while in prison - Daniel Everette Hale - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, two younger sibilings, no SO - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation - Documented prison visits: no info available - Reality Leigh Winner - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, 1 sister, boyfriend - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation, wiretap, cut off by extended circle, significant legal expenses - Documented prison visits: multiple visits by mother, multiple phone calls - Misc: Mother faced panic attacks and depression. Sister withdrew from college for a semester. Parents faced difficulties with retaining job. - Terry J Albury - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, siblings unknown, wife, 2 children - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation - Documented prison visits: no info available - Misc: Wife and multiple friends remained supportive throughout the trial and prison sentence. - Joshua Adam Schulte - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, 3 brothers, SO unknown - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation, significant legal expenses, online harassment - Documented prison visits: some family visits, visits were restricted for 3 years, claimed that he was attempting to release more info from prison - James Hitselberger - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, no siblings, no SO - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation - Documented prison visits: no info available - Donald Sachtleben - Documented social circle at the time of leak: no info available - Documented consequences for social circle: no info available - Documented prison visits: no info available - Chelsea Elizabeth Manning - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, (divorced), 1 sister, boyfriend (breakup at same time) - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation, wiretap, significant legal expenses, cut off by extended circle, online verbal harassment - Documented prison visits: Multiple visits by family and friends. Multiple letters received, although some were redacted. First visits were behind glass, later visits were regular. - Misc: UK govt cooperated with US govt to wiretap mother and aunt in Wales. Father lost job, mother lived in debt, until sufficient donation received for legal defence. Mother collapsed during hearing, faced multiple panic attacks and medical consequences. Father became depressed. Father's second marriage broke apart as well. - Shamai Kedem Leibowitz - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, wife, children unknown - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation - Documeted prison visits: no info available - Misc: Used public defender not private lawyer. Grandson of Yeshayahu Leibowitz. Likely morally supported by family and broader jewish community throughout trial and imprisonment. - Samuel Loring Morison - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, siblings unknown, spouse unknown, children unknown - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation - Documented prison visits: no info available - Misc: Grandson of Samuel Eliot Morison ### Opsec mistakes Category B, opsec mistakes - Jack Douglas Teixeira - Trial: [United States v. Teixeira, 1:23-cr-10159, (D. Mass.)](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67505240/united-states-v-teixeira/) - Digital trail - Discord worked with US govt to provide Teixeira's chat logs, provide Teixeira's sign-up details and delete messages and groups from their platform. [ECF No 3 Attachment #1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67505240/3/1/united-states-v-teixeira/) Discord had Teixeira's name, billing details, home address. [ECF No 135](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67505240/135/united-states-v-teixeira/) - Teixeira instructed discord group members to delete all his messages if investigated. Teixeira later deleted discord server himself. - US govt had access logs from their official database. Timestamps between database access logs and discord logs correlated. - Teixeira printed many classified documents using official printer. US govt had access to print logs. Timestamps between database access logs and print logs correlated. [ECF No 135](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67505240/135/united-states-v-teixeira/) - Printer used was in the basement of the building, not the printer in same floor as where he worked. Printouts were taken during hours where less staff were present. [ECF No 135](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67505240/135/united-states-v-teixeira/) - Physical trail - US govt found destroyed tablet, laptop, gaming console in a dumpster near Teixeira's house. US govt also found GoPro camera in a dumpster near Teixeira's house. [ECF No 19](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67505240/19/united-states-v-teixeira/) - US govt claimed at trial that hard drive of this damaged laptop was not found. - People in-the-loop - Teixeira was told multiple times by his bosses not to conduct "deep dives" into classified material. - Teixeira told people at work his phone got damaged. - Source unknown - US govt at trial inferred Teixeira had been photographing documents and taking them home, to avoid using official printer. - Daniel Everette Hale - Trial: [United States v. Hale, 1:19-cr-00059, (E.D. Va.)](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/united-states-v-hale/) - Did not go to trial, hence some evidence may never have been published. - Digital trail - US govt found reporter's contact in Hale's phone's contact list. [ECF No 1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/1/united-states-v-hale/) - US govt found two thumb drives at Hale's house. First thumb drive contained one page of a classified document. Second thumb drive contained TAILS installed. [ECF No 1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/1/united-states-v-hale/) - US govt had logs of badge reads at workplace. US govt had logs of work computer being locked and unlocked. US govt had logs of official printer at workplace. All three timestamps correlated. [ECF No 184 Attachment #1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/184/1/united-states-v-hale/) - US govt had print logs of all 36 documentes printed. US govt correlated which of these documents were published in the reporter's book. [ECF No 1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/1/united-states-v-hale/) - US govt was given access to Hale's gmail account by Google. Emails used to argue Hale had self-serving motivations. [ECF No 227 Attachment #2](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/227/2/united-states-v-hale/), [ECF No 227](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/227/united-states-v-hale/), [ECF No 168 Attachment #9](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/168/9/united-states-v-hale/) - Physical trail - None found - People in-the-loop - None found - Source unknown - This evidence might or might not have been sent to hale's lawyer as part of discovery process, but it was never published publicly AFAIK. - US govt knew Hale searched internet for info on a specific reporter. Also knew exact date and time of irl meeting planned with reporter. [ECF No 1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/1/united-states-v-hale/) - US govt knew date of meeting between Hale and reporter at book fair. [ECF No 1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/1/united-states-v-hale/) US govt knew Hale searched for classified info the day after the meting. [ECF No 1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/1/united-states-v-hale/) US govt knew Hale sent a message to close friend about this meeting, also knew contents of message. [ECF No 1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/1/united-states-v-hale/) - US govt knew about another meeting between Hale and reporter, and another message to friend about this meeting. [ECF No 1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/1/united-states-v-hale/) - US govt knew in detail the dates of many in-person meetings between Hale and reporter, and messages sent between Hale and Hale's friend. [ECF No 1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/1/united-states-v-hale/) - US govt knew about phone call between Hale and reporter. [ECF No 1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/1/united-states-v-hale/) - US govt knew about exact contents of message where reporter asks Hale to install jabber. [ECF No 1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/1/united-states-v-hale/) US govt knew that atleast three conversations occured on jabber. [ECF No 1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/1/united-states-v-hale/) - US govt knew dates of meetings correlated with timestamps of print logs. [ECF No 1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/1/united-states-v-hale/) - Reality Leigh Winner - Trial: [United States v. Winner, 1:17-cr-00034, (S. D. Ga.)](https://standwithreality.org/original-court-documents/) - Winner accepted plea agreement, so no jury trial or sentencing trial occured. Hence some evidence may never have been published. - Digital trail - Using search warrant, FBI seized multiple of Winner's devices. - Winner's mobile phone had a screenshot with The Intercept's SecureDrop address. [ECF No 109](https://standwithreality.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/092917-109-prosec-exhibits-transcripts.pdf) - Winner's personal computer had saved web history including countries she wanted to fly to (search results for flights, jobs, etc) and history of various terrorist orgs. [ECF No 110](https://standwithreality.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/092917-110-prosec-exhibits-letters.pdf) - Winner's personal computer had stored login to social media account DMs where Winner admitted to supporting Snowden and Assange, searching about Anonymous, and having anti-US motivations. [ECF No 110](https://standwithreality.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/092917-110-prosec-exhibits-letters.pdf) - Physical trail - Using search warrant, FBI found handwritten notes at Winner's house. - Winner had notes on how to do a SIM swap. [ECF No 109](https://standwithreality.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/092917-109-prosec-exhibits-transcripts.pdf) - Winner had notes on how to setup Tor and anonymous email address. - Winner had notes on countries she wanted to escape to, and notes supporting Taliban leaders, possibly non-serious. [ECF No 109](https://standwithreality.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/092917-109-prosec-exhibits-transcripts.pdf) - People-in-the-loop - The Intercept contacted the US govt and sent them a hard copy of the leaked document before publishing it. The Intercept informed US govt that they received the document via post from Augusta, Georgia. This matched Winner's house address. This combined with the print logs enabled the US govt to obtain search warrant. [Search Warrant](https://standwithreality.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/060317-001-search-warrant-application.pdf), [ECF No 110](https://standwithreality.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/092917-110-prosec-exhibits-letters.pdf), [ECF No 120](https://standwithreality.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/171012-120.pdf) - Using search warrant, FBI agents interrogated Winner at her house while they were searching it. Winner admitted to the following during the interrogation. [ECF No 29](https://standwithreality.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/061717-029-court-transcript.pdf). Full interview transcript: [ECF No 100-1](https://standwithreality.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/092717-100.1-interrogation-transcript.pdf) - Winner admitted that she printed the document, removed it from a secure building, stored it in her car for 2 days, then mailed it to the news outlet. - Winner admitted her phone had a screenshot with The Intercept's SecureDrop address. - Winner admitted she had political anti-US motivations for leaking the document. - Winner admitted she searched how to safely insert USB drive into TOP SECRET work computer. Winner admitted she inserted the USB drive to the computer. - Once arrested, over recorded calls from prison, Winner admitted to sister to leaking documents. [ECF No 109](https://standwithreality.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/092917-109-prosec-exhibits-transcripts.pdf) - Source unknown - US govt claimed they had logs showing only 6 people had printed the document that The Intercept sent them. It is not clear whether these were printer logs or Winner's work computer logs or server database logs. This combined with the mailing label from The Intercept enabled them to obtain search warrant. - Terry J Albury - Trial: [United States v. Albury, 0:18-cr-00067, (D. Minn.)](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6349764/united-states-v-albury/) - Albury pled guilty quite early, hence not much evidence was published. No jury trial occurred. - Digital trail - The public version of a document published by The Intercept contained a grey highlight proving the document was obtained by screenshotting the document from a specific web interface. Public version of another document also contained screen defects proving it was screenshotted. Redaction by The Intercept not carried out correctly. [Search warrant](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4426181/Minneapolis-FBI-Agent-Search-Warrant-Application.pdf) - US govt had logs of Albury copy-pasting some documents into a Word document. Logs likely obtained from Albury's work computer at his office directly. [Search warrant](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4426181/Minneapolis-FBI-Agent-Search-Warrant-Application.pdf) - Physical trail - US govt had CCTV footage of Albury's office room where Albury is seen with a personal camera pointed in front of his work computer. Timestamp of this footage matches those of work computer logs. [Search warrant](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4426181/Minneapolis-FBI-Agent-Search-Warrant-Application.pdf) - Using search warrant, US govt found the following at Albury's house. [ECF No 16](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6349764/16/united-states-v-albury/) - 58 sensitive and classified documents on a USB drive. - This USB drive was in an envelope with a reporter's phone number on it. - Multiple other devices that also contained copies of some of these documents. - People-in-the-loop - The Intercept made an FOIA request to US govt with one of the documents they intended to publish. - Later on in the trial, Albury admitted to using tutanota end-to-end encrypted email and Tor, and to using Adobe Acrobat and Readdle software to manually edit the images and pdf files. [ECF No 35](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6349764/35/united-states-v-albury/) - Source unknown - US govt had logs of 16 individuals who downloaded the same document from their server. They also had logs indicating Albury was the only individual of those 16 that performed cut-paste actions on the document, consistent with the grey highlight on The Intercept's publicly published documents. Other blue and orange highlights made by Albury on the documents were also found. [Search warrant](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4426181/Minneapolis-FBI-Agent-Search-Warrant-Application.pdf) - US govt had access to an email thread between Albury and a reporter, indicating Albury may have had intention of contacting the media if internal channels would not let him speak. Email thread does not specify details of what information he is referring to. [Search warrant](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4426181/Minneapolis-FBI-Agent-Search-Warrant-Application.pdf) - Joshua Adam Schulte - Trial: [United States v. Schulte, No. 1:17‑cr‑00548, (S.D.N.Y.)](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6359557/united-states-v-schulte/) - todo - todo ### Journalism Category B, journalism - Jack Douglas Teixeira - First publication: Semi-public discord server Thug Shaker Central, 2022-02. - First publication in mass media: [Ukraine War Plans Leak Prompts Pentagon Investigation, The New York Times, 2023-04-06](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/06/us/politics/ukraine-war-plan-russia.html) - New York Times publication does not contain original documents. - Could not find a mirror to original documents yet. - todo - Helene Cooper, Eric Schmitt, Joseph F Kahn (editor) - The New York Times - No journalist directly contacted by the source. Journalists eventually found the discord and broadcast the information further. - No public record confirming journalists or editor knew the identity of the source. - Daniel Everette Hale - First publication: [The Drone Papers, The Intercept, 2015-10-15](https://theintercept.com/2015/10/15/the-drone-papers/) - Jeremy Scahill, Betsy Reed (editor) - The Intercept - Publication contains some original documents. - Journalist knew the identity of the source. No public record confirming editor knew the identity of the source. (See note above on this scenario.) - Reality Leigh Winner - First publication: [Top Secret NSA Report Details ..., The Intercept, 2017-06-05](https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/) - Richard Esposito, Matthew Cole, Sam Biddle, Ryan Grim (editor) - the Intercept - Publication contains some original documents. - No public record confirming journalists or editor knew source identity. - Terry J Albury - First publication: [The FBI's Secret Rules, The Intercept, 2017-01-31](https://theintercept.com/series/the-fbis-secret-rules/) - Trevor Aaronson, Cora Currier, Jenna McLaughlin, Alice Speri. Betsy Reed (editor) - The Intercept - Publication contains some original documents. - No public record confirming journalists or editor knew source identity. - Joshua Adam Schulte - First publication: [Vault 7, Wikileaks, 2017-03-07](https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/index.html) - Anonymous team, Julian Assange (editor) - Wikileaks - Publication contains some original documents. - No public record confirming journalists or editor (of wikileaks) knew source identity. - 2nd attempt: From prison, he promised more documents offered to: Shane Harris, the Washington Post. Marcy Wheeler, Emptywheel. Both journalists knew identity of source. - James Hitselberger - Publication: No publication - Did not work with any journalists. - Donald Sachtleben - First publication: [CIA thwarts new al-Qaida underwear bomb plot, Associated Press, 2012-05-07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eei6MAmYrl0). - Unable to find text article on AP website, may have been taken down, may still be available on Wayback Machine - todo. - [Same news repeated, Fox News, 2012-05-07](https://www.foxnews.com/us/cia-thwarts-new-al-qaida-underwear-bomb-plot) - Adam Goldman, Matt Apuzzo, Ted Bridis (editor) - Associated Press - Sachtleben did not send original documents to the journalist, hence they're not published. - Court record confirms Adam Goldman knew the identity of the source. No public record confirming Matt Apuzzo or Ted Bridis knew the identity of the source. (See note above on this scenario.) - Chelsea Elizabeth Manning - First publication: [Classified cable from US Embassy Reykjavik on Icesave, Wikileaks, 2010-02-18](https://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Classified_cable_from_US_Embassy_Reykjavik_on_Icesave,_13_Jan_2010) - Anonymous team, Julian Assange (editor) - Wikileaks - No public record confirming anyone at Wikileaks knew the identity of the source at the time of the leak. Julian Assange has declined knowing identity of source before it was publicly reported. - Speculation by me (Samuel): Since Adrian Lamo could figure out the identity from social media clues, and Julian Assange was also a skilled hacker, there is a significant probability wikileaks also independently deduced the identity of the source before it was publicly reported. - Publication contains original documents. - Shamai Kedem Leibowitz - First publication: FBI Wiretap Transcripts: Israeli Embassy Targets Iran and U.S. Opinion, Richard Silverstein (at richardsilverstein.com), 2009-03-26 - Link taken down, could not find a mirror yet. - todo - [Later article by Richard Silverstein](https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2016/12/10/published-us-intelligence-secrets-israels-anti-iran-campaign/) discusses the transcripts but does not contain the original transcripts - Richard Silverstein - independent blogger - Richard Silverstein knew the identity of the source. - Misc: Leibowitz and Silverstein later publicly accused each other of misaligned motives. - Samuel Loring Morison - First publication: Jane's Defence Weekly, volume 2 no 5, 1984-08-07 sent to newsrooms, 1984-08-11 official publishing date. - Could not find digitised version of magazine issue yet. - todo - Derek Wood (editor), Sidney Jackson (managing director), other editorial staff - Publication contains original documents (photographs). - Derek Wood knew identity of the source. Public record does not confirm any staff knew the identity of the source. Speculation: Sidney Jackson also may have known the identity of the source. ### Law - Supervisory role played in some cases by attorney generals or assistant attorney generals: Zachary Terwilliger, John C. Demers, Matthew G. Olsen Category B, lawyers they directly worked with - Jack Douglas Teixeira - lawyers for: Brendan O. Kelley, Gene Allen Franco, Joshua Robert Hayne (withdrawn), Michael Bachrach - lawyers against: Nadine Pellegrini, Jared C. Dolan, Jason A. Casey, Christina A. Clark, Joshua Levy - Daniel Everette Hale - lawyers for: Todd Richman, Cadence Mertz, Ruth Vinson, Tor Ekeland, Jesselyn Radack - lawyers against: Gordon Kromberg, Alexander Berrang, Heather M. Schmidt - Reality Leigh Winner - lawyers for: Titus Nichols, Alison Grinter Allen, Joe D. Whitley, Matthew S. Chester - lawyers against: Julie A. Edelstein, Jennifer G. Solari, Bobby L. Christine - Terry J Albury - lawyers for: JaneAnne Murray, Joshua L. Dratel - lawyers against: Danya E. Atiyeh, Patrick T. Murphy, David C. Recker - Joshua Adam Schulte - lawyers for: Joshua Adam Schulte (represented self), Sabrina P. Shroff, Deborah Austern Colson (withdrawn), Matthew B. Larsen, Sean Michael Maher, James Matthew Branden, Lauren Martine Dolecki, Edward S Zas, Allegra Glashausser - lawyers against: David W. Denton Jr., Michael D. Lockard, Nicholas S. Bradley, Sidhardha Kamaraju, Matthew Laroche, Scott McCulloch, Damian Williams (supervisory), Geoffrey S. Berman (supervisory) - James Hitselberger - lawyers for: Mary Manning Petras, Rosanna Margaret Taormina, A. J. Kramer, Carlos J. Vanegas - lawyers against: Jay I. Bratt, Mona N. Sahaf, Thomas A. Bednar, Deborah A. Curtis - Donald Sachtleben - lawyers for: Charles C. Hayes, Kathleen M. Sweeney, Larry A. Mackey - lawyers against: Jonathan M. Malis, G. Michael Harvey, Richard S. Scott, Mona N. Sahaf, Steven D. DeBrota, Joseph H. Hogsett - Chelsea Elizabeth Manning - lawyers for: David E. Coombs, Nancy Hollander, Vincent Ward, Matthew Kemkes, Paul Bouchard, Chase Strangio. ACLU - lawyers against: Ashden Fein, Joe Morrow, Angel Overgaard, Hunter Whyte - Shamai Kedem Leibowitz - lawyers for: Cary D. Feldman (withdrawn), Richard M. Asche - lawyers against: Steven M. Dunne, Kathleen M. Kedian, David Kris (supervisory), David Kris (supervisory) - Samuel Loring Morison - lawyers for: Jacob A. Stein, Robert F. Muse, Mark H. Lynch, Charles F.C. Ruff, Neil K. Roman, Steven F. Reich, Armistead P. Rood - lawyers against: Michael Schatzow, Michael Schatzow, Breckinridge Long Willcox. 2nd case: James G. Warwick, Rod J. Rosenstein Category B, public fundraising for legal defence - Jack Douglas Teixeira - Could not find - Daniel Everette Hale - Yes - Reality Leigh Winner - Yes - Terry J Albury - Yes - Joshua Adam Schulte - Could not find - James Hitselberger - Yes - Donald Sachtleben - Could not find - Chelsea Elizabeth Manning - Yes - Shamai Kedem Leibowitz - Could not find - Samuel Loring Morison - Could not find ### Miscellaneous information - Jack Douglas Teixeira - Misc info brought up during the trial - Discord username: TheExcaliburEffect, Discord server: Thug Shaker Central - Teixeira's bedroom photos, later argued these guns were fake. [ECF No 19 Attachment #6](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67505240/19/6/united-states-v-teixeira/). - Teixeira's arrest photos. [ECF No 20 Attachment #1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67505240/20/1/united-states-v-teixeira/) - Teixeira's dicord messages quoted verbatim. [ECF No 19 Attachment #8](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67505240/19/8/united-states-v-teixeira/). Teixeira repeatedly boasts about his leak. [ECF No 34](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67505240/34/united-states-v-teixeira/) - Teixeira suspended from school for racial threats, rejected for gun license multiple times as a result, used security clearance to get gun license, had many guns in gun locker. [ECF No 19 Attachment #5](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67505240/19/5/united-states-v-teixeira/) - Teixeira made social media statements that he might conduct a mass shooting. Teixeira's work colleague said that he might get shot by Teixeira. (Court record is not clear if these were jokes or not.) [ECF No 19 Attachment #4](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67505240/19/4/united-states-v-teixeira/) - Teixeira denied bail. [ECF No 34](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67505240/34/united-states-v-teixeira/) - After guilty plea, Teixeira attended four hour interrogation where he admitted his actions. [ECF No 142](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67505240/142/united-states-v-teixeira/) - In order to reduce prison sentence, Teixeira's lawyer got a psychiatrist to testify that Teixeira was diagnosed as having ADHD and autism, and that Teixeira was naive about who were the receipients of the info in the discord. [ECF No 142](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67505240/142/united-states-v-teixeira/) - In order to reduce prison sentence, Teixeira's lawyer published many stories and letters about Teixeira's childhood. [ECF No 142 Attachment #2](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67505240/142/2/united-states-v-teixeira/) - Daniel Everette Hale - Misc info brought up during the trial - Software used by Hale for converting file formats and printing documents: O&K, GhostPCL. [ECF No 168](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/168/6/united-states-v-hale/) - Lots of argumentation back-and-forth on whether Hale's action of leaking documents could be seen as stealing more than $1000 of value from the govt or not. [ECF No 195](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/195/united-states-v-hale/) - In order to reduce prison sentence, Hale's lawyer attached letters in support of Hale. [ECF No 240 Attachment #1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/240/1/united-states-v-hale/), [ECF No 240 Attachment #4](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/240/4/united-states-v-hale/) - Hale's lawyer obtained expert testimony indicating no harm occured as a result of the disclosure. [ECF No 240 Attachment #7](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15081008/240/7/united-states-v-hale/) - Reality Leigh Winner - Misc info brought up during the trial - On a recorded phone call from prison, Winner asked mother to transfer funds out of her bank account to avoid them being frozen. [ECF No 109](https://standwithreality.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/092917-109-prosec-exhibits-transcripts.pdf) - US govt had logs showing USB drive was inserted into work computer, but no logs indicating filenames, hashes or timestamps of exact files transferred. - Misc info also published to trial. House photos [ECF No 234](https://standwithreality.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/180227-234.pdf). Warrants [ECF No 235](https://standwithreality.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/180227-235.pdf) - Lots of argumentation occured before trial on whether the FBI interrogation transcript was admissible in court or not, as Winner was not formally informed she was arrested or read her miranda rights. - Someone else setup a GoFundMe for Winner that received $12k. No evidence confirming Winner was able to access this money. - Winner's anonymous email address used to contact The Intercept: da3re.fitness@gmail.com - Winner planned to contact Wikileaks first but was underwhelmed by what they had to offer. Hence contacted The Intercept. - Terry J Albury - Misc info brought up during trial - Amicus brief by Freedom of the Press Foundation pleading lenient sentencing for Albury. [Amicus Brief](https://sgp.fas.org/jud/albury-amicus.pdf) - Letters from Albury's social circle pleading for a lenient sentence for Albury. [ECF No 33 Attachment #4](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6349764/33/4/united-states-v-albury/), [ECF No 41](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6349764/41/united-states-v-albury/) ## Category C: US govt whistleblowers/leakers who did not leak classified documents but leaked information, and were imprisoned Category C (sorted by date) - Henry Kyle Frese - John Chris Kiriakou - Stephen Jin-Woo Kim - Jeffrey Alexander Sterling ### Classification status Category C, classification status of leaked info (sorted by date) - Henry Kyle Frese - classified at time of leak - some documents TOP SECRET/SCI, some documents SECRET (?? seems unclear) - remains classified as of 2025 - John Chris Kiriakou - classified at time of leak - officier identity SECRET, interrogation details TOP SECRET/SCI or CONFIDENTIAL/SECRET (??? seems unclear) - officer identity remains classified as of 2025, partial info about interrogation methods declassified as of 2025 - Stephen Jin-Woo Kim - classified at time of leak - TOP SECRET/SCI - remains classified as of 2025 - Jeffrey Alexander Sterling - classified at time of leak - TOP SECRET/SCI, or SECRET (??? seems unclear) - remains classified as of 2025 ### Key dates Category C, key dates (sorted by date) - Henry Kyle Frese - first transmission 2018-04-27, first publication 2018-05-02, arrest 2019-10-09, public identity 2019-10-09, released 2022-10-14 - John Chris Kiriakou - first non-classified transmission 2007-12-10, first non-classified publication 2007-12 - identity of CIA officer deuce martinez was classified. deuce martinez involvement independently suspected in public since 2006-06-20. first transmission of classified info 2008-08 (email from public record in 2008-08, previous email in 2008-04 alleged), first public publication of martinez' name 2008-06-22 (Scott Shane, NYT), first publication in a classified legal hearing 2009, clear public publication of classified info with surrounding context 2015-02-18. - arrest 2012-01-23, public identity 2012-01-23, released 2025-02-03 - Stephen Jin-Woo Kim - first transmission 2009-06, first publication 2009-06-11, indicted 2010-08-18, arrest 2010-08-24, public identity as whistleblower confirmed 2010-08-24, released 2015 (??? exact date not clear) - Jeffrey Alexander Sterling - first transmission 2003-03 (first phone call 2003-02-27 out of multiple phone calls, not clear which phone call revealed classified info), first publication 2006-01-03, arrest 2011-01-06, public identity 2011-01-06 (identity was semi-private before this), released 2018-01 (exact date unclear) ### Social circle Category C, consequences on social circle (only done surface-level research so far) - Henry Kyle Frese - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, 3 sisters, girlfriend - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation - Documented prison visits: no info available - John Chris Kiriakou - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, siblings unknown, wife, 5 children (of which 2 from wife, 3 from ex-wife) - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation, wiretap, polygraph, cut off by extended circle, significant legal expenses, online and inperson verbal harassment - Documented prison visits: Multiple visits by spouse and children, visits by journalists - Misc: Publicly talks about how being shunned by his entire social circle was painful - Stephen Jin-Woo Kim - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, girlfriend (later wife), 1 sister, other siblings unknown - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation, significant legal expenses, online harassment - Documented prison visits: Multiple visits by family members, visit by journalist - Misc: James Rosen, journalist, visited Stephen Kim in prison to apologise. - Jeffrey Alexander Sterling - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, multiple siblings, wife, no children - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation, wiretap, significant legal expenses, online harassment - Documented prison visits: Multiple visits by wife. Some journalists were allowed visits and others were denied. - Misc: Lost house and nearly went bankrupt due to legal fees. Supported by wife throughout trial and imprisonment. ### Opsec mistakes Category C, opsec mistakes - todo ### Journalism Category C, journalism - Henry Kyle Frese - First publication: [China quietly installed missle systems ..., CNBC, 2018-05-02](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/02/china-added-missile-systems-on-spratly-islands-in-south-china-sea.html) - Amanda Macias, CNBC News, in romantic relationship with Frese. Courtney Kube, CNBC News. - Frese did not transmit original documents, hence they're not published. - Journalists knew source identity. - John Chris Kiriakou - First publication with name of CIA officer (considered classified info): [Inside a 9/11 Mastermind's Interrogation, the New York Times, 2008-06-22](https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/world/americas/22iht-22ksm.13873332.html) - Scott Shane, Bill Keller (editor) - The New York Times. Info also offered to: Matthew Cole - the Intercept. - Both journalists and editor knew the identity of the source. - Misc: John Kiriakou publicly accuses Matthew Cole, journalist at the Intercept, for getting him imprisoned. - Stephen Jin-Woo Kim - First publication: [NK's Post UN Sanctions Plans, Revealed, Fox News, 2009-06-11](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nks-post-un-sanctions-plans-revealed) - James Rosen, Michael Clemente (editor), Bill Sammon (editor) - Fox News - Kim did not send any original documents to the journalist, hence they're not published. - James Rosen knew the identity of the source. No public record confirming the editor knew the identity of the source. (See note above on this scenario.) - Jeffrey Alexander Sterling - First publication: State of War, James Risen, 2006-01-03, published by Free Print under Simon & Schuster. [State of War, Anna's Archive book download](https://annas-archive.org/md5/0d865e7d195887efe41c34547b1a3b21). James Risen was a journalist at the New York Times. - Publication does not contain original documents, hence they're not published. - James Risen knew identity of the source. Court record (US v Sterling) confirms James' wife Holly also knew identity of the source. Multiple intelligence community members also suspected the identity of the source. Public record is not clear on who all were informed by Sterling that he was the source. ### Law Category C, lawyers they directly worked with - Henry Kyle Frese - lawyers for: Stuart Sears - lawyers against: Jennifer Kennedy Gellie, Danya E. Atiyeh, Neil Hammerstrom - John Chris Kiriakou - lawyers for: Robert Trout, Plato Cacheris, John F. Hundley, Jesse Isaac Winograd, Jesselyn Radack (advisory) - lawyers against: Neil H. MacBride, Mark Schneider, Iris Lan, Patrick Fitzgerald (absent), Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Ryan Fayhee, William N. Hammerstrom Jr., Lisa Owings - Stephen Jin-Woo Kim - lawyers for: Abbe D. Lowell, Paul M. Thompson, James M. Commons, Ruth Wedgwood - lawyers against: Michael Harvey, Jonathan M. Malis, Thomas A. Bednar, Deborah A. Curtis, Julie A. Edelstein, Ronald C. Machen Jr. (supervisory) - Jeffrey Alexander Sterling - lawyers for: Edward MacMahon, Barry Pollack, William James Trunk, J. Richard Supple Jr., Mia Haessly, Lawrence S. Robbins - lawyers against: James L. Trump, Eric G. Olshan, Dennis Fitzpatrick, William M. Welch II (withdrawn), Timothy Kelly, Neil H. MacBride, Dana J. Boente (supervisory), Robert A. Parker (supervisory), Leslie R. Caldwell (supervisory), Sung-Hee Suh (supervisory) Category C, public fundraising for legal defence - Henry Kyle Frese - Could not find - John Chris Kiriakou - Yes - Stephen Jin-Woo Kim - Could not find - Jeffrey Alexander Sterling - Yes ### Misc - empty ## Category D: US govt whistleblowers/leakers who did not leak classified documents but may have leaked classified information, and were not imprisoned Category D (sorted by date) - Thomas Andrews Drake - Mark Lee Klein - Russell D Tice - Thomas M Tamm - Sibel Deniz Edmonds - Edward Loomis - William Edward Binney - John Kirk Wiebe - Perry Douglas Fellwock ### Classification status Category D, classification status of leaked info (sorted by date) - Thomas Andrew Drake - not classified - govt alleged classified documents leak, judge declared those documents were not classified - Mark Lee Klein - leaked existence of program that may have been classified, but no classified documents - Russell D Tice - leaked existence of classified program, but no classified documents - Thomas M Tamm - leaked existence of classified program, but no classified documents - Sibel Deniz Edmonds - leaked details that were retroactively classified after the leak, did not leak classified documents - Edward Loomis - leaked details of classified program, but no classified documents - William Edward Binney - leaked existence and details of classified program, but no classified documents (as per court record) - John Kirk Wiebe - leaked existence and details of classified program, but no classified documents (as per court record) - Perry Douglas Fellwock - leaked existence and extensive amount of details of classified program, likely did not leak classified documents (as per court record) ### Key dates Category D, key dates (sorted by date) - Thomas Andrews Drake - first transmission to journalist 2005-11 to 2006-02 (??? exact date unclear), first publication 2006-01-29, house raid 2007-11-28, trial sentencing date 2011-07-15, no arrest - Mark Lee Klein - first transmission to EFF (for sealed legal hearing) 2006-01-20, first transmission to journalist 2006-01 to 2006-02 (??? exact date unclear), first publication 2006-04-06, no house raid / indictment / arrest - Russell D Tice - first transmission to journalist 2004 (??? exact date unclear), first internal complaint to DoD IG 2004 or 2005 (??? exact date unclear), security clearance revoked 2005-05 (??? exact date unclear), first publication 2005-12-16, no house raid / indictment / arrest - Thomas M Tamm - first transmission 2006-03 to 2006-06 (??? exact date unclear), first publication 2005-12-16, house raid 2007-08-01, public identity 2008-12-13, no indictment, investigation formally closed 2011-04 - Sibel Deniz Edmonds - first internal complaint 2001-12-02, fired 2002-03-22, first transmission 2002 (??? exact date unclear), first publication (TV interview) 2002-10-27 - Edward Loomis - first internal complaint 2002-11-09, no transmission of secret info to outside sources (??? seems unclear), house raid 2007-07-26, no indictment - William Edward Binney - binney resigned 2001-10-31, first internal complaint (with wiebe) 2002-11-09, first transmission - exact date unclear, first publication 2011-05-23 (seems unclear if previous publication existed), house raid (with wiebe) 2007-07-26, no indictment, public identity 2011-05-23 (seems unclear if previous publication existed) - John Kirk Wiebe - first internal complaint (with binney) 2002-11-09, first transmission - exact date unclear, first publication (with binney) 2011-05-23 (seems unclear if previous publication existed), house raid (with binney) 2007-07-26, no indictment, public identity 2011-05-23 (seems unclear if previous publication existed) - Perry Douglas Fellwock - first transmission 1972 (exact date not clear), first publication 1972-08, public identity 1972-07-18, no house raid, no indictment ### Social circle Category D, consequences on social circle - Thomas Andrews Drake - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, siblings unknown, wife, five sons - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation, wiretap, cut off by extended circle, significant legal expenses, in-person and online verbal harassment - Misc: lost pension worth over $1M - Mark Lee Klein - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, 1 older brother, ex-wife, wife, no children - Documented consequences for social circle: in-person verbal harassment - Russell D Tice - Documented social circle at the time of leak: todo - Documented consequences for social circle: todo - Misc: todo - Thomas M Tamm - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, brother, another late brother, wife, three children - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation, wiretap, significant legal expenses, online verbal harassment - Misc: Thomas Tamm suffered depression after the leak. Lost employment and went into debt due to legal expenses, later received funding. - Sibel Deniz Edmonds - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Late father, mother, two younger sisters, husband, no children - Documented consequences for social circle: interrogation, wiretap, significant legal expenses, cut off by extended circle, online and in-person verbal harassment - Misc: Computers were searched, but no house raid - Edward Loomis - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, siblings unknown, wife, atleast two children, children unknown (???) - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation, wiretap, cut off by extended circle and immediate family members (as per Ed Loomis' own decision) - Misc: Kirk Wiebe claims Edward Loomis' divorce with his wife was a result of the leak. Edward Loomis isolated from immediate family for multiple years to prevent them finding out that he was the source. - William Edward Binney - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, elder brother, wife, three children - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation, wiretap, in-person and verbal harassment, cut off by extended circle - Misc: ??? consequences on family relationships not clear. More verbal harassment due to recent political opinions shared by Bill Binney - John Kirk Wiebe - Documented social circle at the time of leak: Father, mother, siblings unknown, wife, multiple children, children unknown (???) - Documented consequences for social circle: house raid, interrogation, wiretap, faced significant legal expenses - Perry Douglas Fellwock - Documented social circle at the time of leak: unknown. (As of 2013 interview, Fellwock continues to successfully deflect journalist's questions about who his family memmbers are.) - Documented consequences for social circle: unknown ### Opsec mistakes Category D, opsec mistakes - todo ### Journalism Category D, journalists they directly worked with - Thomas Andrews Drake - First publication: [Biggest boondogle going on now, Baltimore Sun, 2006-01-29](https://baltimoresun.newspapers.com/newspage/248566127/) - No original documents published - Siobhan Gorman, Timothy A Franklin (editor) - Baltimore Sun - Diane S Roark knew identity of the source. No public record confirming anyone at Baltimore Sun (including Siobhan Gorman or the editor) knew identity of the source. Anonymous encrypted email used for communication. - Mark Lee Klein - First publication: [Wiretap whistleblower's account, Wired, 2006-04-06](https://www.wired.com/2006/04/wiretap-whistle-blowers-account/) - No original documents published in this media publication. Three documents were provided to sealed legal hearing. - Ryan Singel, Evan Hansen (editor) - Wired - Source declared identity publicly in this publication. - Russell D Tice - First publication: Same as Thomas Tamm, listed below. All details similar. - No public record confirming anyone knew identity of the source. Speculation (as per Samuel): James Risen, Eric Lichtblau, Bill Keller, and Arthur Sulzberger Jr likely knew the identity of the source. - Thomas M Tamm - First publication: [Bush lets US spy on callers without courts, The New York Times, 2005-12-16](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy-on-callers-without-courts.html) - No original documents published - James Risen, Eric Lichtblau, Bill Keller (editor) - The New York Times - No public record confirming anyone knew identity of the source. Speculation (as per Samuel): James Risen, Eric Lichtblau, Bill Keller, and Arthur Sulzberger Jr likely knew the identity of the source. - Sibel Deniz Edmonds - First publication: [FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds interview, CBS News, 2002-10-27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlCoabsjmPI) - No original documents published - Ed Bradley (correspondent i.e. main reporter on TV), David Kohn (writer), Don Hewitt (producer), Philip Scheffler (editor) - Source declared identity publicly in same interview. - Edward Loomis - As per public record, no media publication directly used sensitive info from him. (He gave TV interview in 2013 but all details mentioned were public record by then.) - William Edward Binney - First publication: [The Secret Sharer, The New Yorker, 2011-05-23](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/23/the-secret-sharer) - No original documents published - Jane Mayer, David Remnick (editor-in-chief). Also, likely editors: Pamela McCarthy, Dorothy Wickenden, Henry Finder, Daniel Zalewski - Source declared identity publicly in the article. - John Kirk Wiebe - First publication same as William Binney, see above. - Source declared identity publicly in the article. - Perry Douglas Fellwock - First publication: [U.S. Electronic Espionage: A Memoir, Ramparts Magazine, 1972-08](https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=ramparts+magazine+august+1972) - David Horowitz, Peter Collier - No original documents published - Both editors knew the identity of the source. Source declared identity publicly immediately after the publication. ### Law Category D, lawyers they directly worked with - Thomas Andrews Drake - lawyers for: James Wyda, Deborah Boardman, Jesselyn Radack, Meghan A. Skelton, James Bamford (advisory) - lawyers against: William M. Welch II, John P. Pearson, Lanny A. Breuer, Steven Tyrrell - Mark Lee Klein - Note: No trial against Mark Lee Klein directly, trials were fought by EFF against AT&T and US govt. Landmark case: Jewel v NSA. - lawyers for: EFF legal team (Kurt Opsahl, Kevin S. Bankston, Cindy Cohn, Lee Tien, James S. Tyre, Corynne McSherry, Mark Rumold, Jamie L. Williams, Andrew Crocker, James S. Tyre), Bert Voorhees, Theresa M. Traber, Keker and Van Nest LLP (Rachael E. Meny, Benjamin W. Berkowitz , Michael S. Kwun, Audrey Walton-Hadlock, Philip J. Tassin), Richard R. Wiebe, Aram Antaramian, Thomas E. Moore III - lawyers against: Representing AT&T/telecoms: Michael Kellogg, Brian Matthew Boynton, Sidley Austin LLP (Bradford Allan Berenson, Eric Dean McArthur, Eric Shumsky), Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (Bruce A. Ericson, Kevin M. Fong) ; Representing US govt: Peter Keisler, Michael Mukasey (supervisory), Anthony Joseph Coppolino, Thomas Mark Bondy, Kevin V. Ryan, Carl J. Nichols, Joseph H. Hunt, Andrew H. Tannenbaum - Russell D Tice - Note: No trial against Russell D Tice directly. - lawyers for: Mark Zaid, Tom Devine, Jesselyn Radack, Roy W. Krieger - lawyers against: Alberto R. Gonzales, David Kris, Paul J. McNulty (related hearing), Robert L. Deitz (related hearing) - Thomas M Tamm - Note: No trial against Thomas M Tamm for whistleblowing, trial was for revoking bar license. He won the trial and kept his license. - lawyers for: Paul Kemp, Michael Frisch, Cary Feldman, Asa Hutchinson - lawyers against: Hamilton P. Fox III, Gene Shipp - Sibel Deniz Edmonds - lawyers for: Mark S. Zaid, Michael D. Kohn, ACLU legal team (Benjamin Wizner, Ann Beeson, Art Spitzer, Melissa Goodman), Eric Seiff, Roy W. Krieger - lawyers against: John Ashcroft (supervisory), Paul D. Clement, Peter D. Keisler, Douglas Letter, H. Thomas Byron III, Vesper Mei, Valerie Caproni, Kimberly Dawn Ziropoulos, Bruce Fein, Dan Marino - Edward Loomis - Note: No trial against Edward Loomis - lawyers for: Jesselyn Radack (advisory) - lawyers against: none - William Edward Binney, John Kirk Wiebe - Note: No important trial involving William Edward Binney or John Kirk Wiebe. Main trials were against Thomas Andrews Drake, and the landmark case Jewel v NSA. William Edward Binney had to sue only to retrieve his personal belongings taken from him during house raid. - lawyers for: John K. Wiebe, William Edward Binney - lawyers against: Rod J. Rosenstein (supervisory) - Perry Douglas Fellwock - Note: No trial involving Perry Douglas Fellwock - lawyers for: no public info (??? seems unclear) - lawyers against: none Category D, public fundraising for legal defence - Thomas Andrews Drake - Yes - Mark Lee Klein - Could not find - Russell D Tice - Could not find - Thomas M Tamm - Yes - Sibel Deniz Edmonds - todo - Edward Loomis - Could not find - William Edward Binney - Could not find - John Kirk Wiebe - Could not find - Perry Douglas Fellwock - Could not find ### Misc - empty ## Category E: Details of US govt whistleblowers/leakers who did not leak classified documents or information, and were not imprisoned Category E (sorted by date, incomplete list) - John R Crane - James Robertson - Robert J. MacLean - leaked SSI, which is unclassified but restricted - Diane Roark - todo more info - todo ## Special case: Julian Assange Assange is rare example of a media publisher not a whistleblower, who went to prison. I'm yet to find another example of a publisher or journalist who spent significant amount of time in prison for working with whistleblowers. more info - todo ## Details of spies against US govt - todo ## Misc - Robert Birchum - ??? - TO DO - more research - Petraus - ??? - TO DO - more research text_english/my_research/ai_course_120min_202506.md000644 000765 000024 00000034566 15177753505 022741 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2025-07-02 # Intro to ML, intro to LLM 2-hour talk, for Ooty retreat 2025-06-26, Samuel Shadrach ## [Full video recording of this talk here](../../video_html/main/ai_course_test_120min_20250621.html) ## Pre-requisites Matrix multiplication, differential calculus, computer programming ``` Q1: Find C = A @ B.T @ means matrix multiplication, .T means transpose [1 -1 3] A = [2 3 3] [-2 0 2] [7 -1 4] B = [-2 0 0] [0 -3 -1] Q2: z = y^2 - (sin(theta))^2 + 2 y cos(theta) + 1 Find partial derivatives dz/dy and dz/d(theta) Q3: Write a function in C to sort an array of N integers in time complexity O(N log N). Do not use built-in libraries for sorting. Accept N as input, then accept the integers as input. Definition of time complexity: Suppose we plot time required to sort an array as a function of N. Let's call this T(N). Time complexity of O(N log N) means T(N) < c N log N for some constant c and all possible N. ``` If you can solve all the above questions, you have covered the pre-reqs. ## Two-layer fully-connected network, trained on MNIST Resources - [MNIST dataset](https://github.com/cvdfoundation/mnist) problem statement - let's say we have 60000 photographs, each is 28x28 pixels wide, grayscale (pixel value between 0 and 1) - each of these is already classified into one of two digits: 0,1,2....9 - we want a program that can quickly classify as many of these as possible - we cannot hard-code the final answers into the final program, because we want this program to also work well on new images we have never seen. - there are 10000 photographs we have not seen, our final score will be tested on this. solution: define the following function using constant weight matrices W1 and W2 forward pass ``` Y = ReLU( ReLU(X @ W_1) @ W_2 ) loss = - sum (Y dot Y') ``` definition of ReLU `ReLU(M)_ij = if M_ij > 0, then M_ij, else 0` Y contains prediction (stored as log probabilities), Y' contains actual answer example (assume N=1 image for now) ``` Y = [ln(0.15) ln(0.75) ln(0.15) ln(0.05) ln(0) ln(0) ln(0) ln(0) ln(0) ln(0)] = [-1.89 -0.28 -1.89 -3.00 -inf -inf -inf -inf -inf -inf] Y' = [0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0] loss = -ln(0.75) = -0.28 ``` dimensions ``` X: (N,D) W_1: (D,E) W_2: (E,C) => Y: (N,C) ``` example dimensions ``` X: (60000, 28*28) = (60000, 784) W_1: (784, 800) W_2: (800, 10) => Y: (60000, 10) ``` Objective: find W1 and W2, so that as many images get classified into correct classes as possible #### training loop How do we find W1 and W2 fast? - W1 has 627k values, W2 has 8k values - even if each cell must be 0 or 1, thats `2^(627k * 8k) = 2^(5 * 10^9)` possibilities - any sort of brute force or iteration is too slow gradient descent - given any weight matrices W1 and W2, we will find new W1 and W2 that are slightly better find gradients of loss with respect to weight matrices ``` dL / dW2 = ??? dL / dW2_ij = ??? ``` visualise it ``` L = - | { ReLu { ReLu { [X_00 ... ] [W1_00 .... ] } [W2_00 .... ] } } dot Y' | | { { { [... X_ND] [.... W1_DE] } [.... W2_EC] } } | ``` how to find dL/dW1_00? and repeat for all values in W1? rewrite it ``` H = f1(X,W1) Y = f2(H,W2) L = f0(Y,Y') ``` remember we are finding partial derivatives. all values are assumed constant, except the value with respect to which we are finding derivative ``` dL / dW2_ij = df0/dY * df2/dW2_ij = ... dL / dW1_ij = df0/dY * df2/dH * dH/dW1_ij = ... ``` final answer, copy-pasted from o3, might contain hallucinations ``` # forward A1 = X @ W1 H = np.maximum(0, A1) A2 = H @ W2 Y = np.maximum(0, A2) loss = -(Y * Y_true).sum() # backward grad_Y = -Y_true mask2 = (A2 > 0).astype(float) delta2 = grad_Y * mask2 # dL/dA2 grad_W2 = H.T @ delta2 # dL/dW2 delta1 = (delta2 @ W2.T) * (A1 > 0) # dL/dA1 grad_W1 = X.T @ delta1 # dL/dW1 ``` conclusion - we have found matrices `dL/dW1` and `dL/dW2`, for given constant values of `X, Y', W1, W2` - `(W1 - e * dL/dW1, W2 - e * dL/dW2)` will have slightly less loss than `(W1, W2)` - repeat this processs millions of times to get very good `(W1, W2)` - this will run fast on a GPU (that's why we defined the network this way) - only intensive operation is matrix multiplication - no copy-paste operation - discard intermediate values on each iteration, and update W1 and W2 - p.s. in practice we will split our dataset into batches to do batch SGD, use an optimiser such as Adam and use cross-entropy loss. all this is not important for now. #### optional homework - derive the backprop formula above - figure out notation so that this calculation becomes easy to do - I have heard that einstein notation makes this result easier to derive, I have not practised it myself though - using pytorch, actually train a two-layer fully connected network on MNIST 60k examples training dataset, obtain 1.6% error on test dataset - in modern ML, usually ML engineers rely on pytorch autograd to compute gradient formulas, so they don't have to calculate it by hand. - for this homework assignment, don't use pytorch autograd. hard-code the gradients specified above. ## deep learning is 15 years of accumulated blackbox tricks - question: ok but why did we use two-layer fully connected network in the first place? - answer: [click here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD68yeBVXgA) - we almost never have mathematical proof for why doing anything is a good idea - why is RMS norm a good idea? why is softmax a good idea? why is ReLu a good idea? - why did we define Q, K, V this way in attention blocks? why did we use 48 layers not 24? - why did we use residual layer? why did we use cosine for positional embeddings? - we do things if we have empirical evidence it worked before, and outperformed similar ideas - but: most ideas have not been tried yet. so we don't know if it actually outperforms similar ideas, just the ones we have tried so far. - there is a graveyard of old approaches - Older architecture: RNN, CNN, LSTM - Today: Attention dominates everything - Older activation functions: Sigmoid, tanh, GELU - Today: ReLu dominates everything - Older loss functions: Mean square loss, hinge loss, logistic loss - Today: Cross-entropy loss dominates everything - Older optimisers: vanilla SGD, RMS prop - Today: AdamW (Adam with weight decay) dominates everything - Older ideas that nobody remembers: dropout, L1 regularisation, etc - New ideas that might or might not become old one day: Mixture of experts, temperature tuning for long context, etc - we have intuitions for why we are doing what we are doing - but: intuitions are often retroactively justified, after we have empirical evidence it worked. no one publishes intuitions for failed ideas. - but: intuitions often come just by looking at hundreds of training runs with slightly different networks. today only big labs can afford to do these many runs at large scale, so only their researchers can build these intuitions. ## Transformer Resources - Justin Johson, University of Michigan, Deep Learning for Computer Vision - [Lecture 13: Attention](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAgjfMR9R_M&list=PL5-TkQAfAZFbzxjBHtzdVCWE0Zbhomg7r&index=13) - Facebook, Llama 4 (launched 2025-04) - [Code and model card](https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-models/blob/main/models/llama4/), [Try on OpenRouter](https://openrouter.ai/meta-llama/llama-4-maverick) Ask o3 this question along with the code: `make a list of all the steps in the following forward pass in plain english` - Input: Sequence of tokens - Output: Logits (log probabilities) for next token Forward pass - Tokenise - Add positional embeddings - Fuse image embeddings (optional) - N transformer blocks (let's say N=80) - RMS Norm - Multi-headed Attention - **Projection:** `X -> Q_1, K_1, V_1` - Reshape: `{Q,K,V}_1 -> {Q,K,V}_2` - Rotary embedding (optional): `{Q,K}_2 -> {Q,K}_3` - Head-wise RMS Norm (optional): `{Q,K}_3 -> {Q,K}_4` - Temperature tuning (optional, for long context): `Q_4 -> Q_TEMP_TUNED` - Duplicate KV cache (for faster computation): `K_4, V_1 -> K_DUPLICATED, V_DUPLICATED` - **Scaled dot product attention (torch.nn.functional.scaled_dot_product_attention):** `Q_TEMP_TUNED, K_DUPLICATED, V_DUPLICATED -> WO` - Projection: `WO -> OUT` - Add residual - RMS Norm - Feed forward / Mixture of experts (`ffn.py`) - Either expert gating network - Or 2-layer fully connected network with SiLU activation function - Add residual - Projection Training loop - Given log probabilities of next token and the actual next token, compute cross-entropy loss - Compute gradients of all the weight matrices with respect to cross entropy loss - Use AdamW optimiser to do gradient descent - Spend $100 billion per year mostly on one single training run ([yes, really](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhIJs4zbH0o)) - *Note: To be technically accurate, this repo is for Llama 4 Scout which only cost ~$10M capex to train (5M hours on H100). State-of-the-art models like Llama 4 Behemoth, GPT4.5, grok-3 likely cost $1-10B capex and used similar architecture but not this exact repo.* #### important steps in attention block Projection ``` Q = X @ W_Q K = X @ W_K V = X @ W_V ``` Scaled dot product attention `Y = softmax[ (Q @ K_T + mask) / sqrt(|Q|) ] @ V` Softmax normalisation - replace each cell with e to the power same cell - divide each cell by sum of the row `softmax(M)_ij = e^M_ij / sum i (e^M_ij)` example ``` softmax { [1 2 ] } = [ e/(e+e^2) e^2/(e+e^2) ] = [0.268 0.731] { [3 -1] } [ e^3/(e^3+1/e) (1/e)/(e^3+1/e) ] [0.982 0.018] ``` Mask - this is the data we are going to pretend we don't have access to, and have the model try to predict it Intuition: How does this work? - softmax: largest values in a row output approx 1, smallest values in a row output approx 0 - mask: some values get hard-coded to 0 - `softmax(something) @ V` - `softmax(something)` is a matrix with most values close to 0 and 1, this tells us which values in `V` to ignore versus not ignore - **We are hiding some parts of X from ourselves (using mask), paying more attention to other parts of X (using softmax Q K_T), and then finding optimal weight matrices to predict the parts of X that we hid** Intution: Why does this outperform other known techniques? - Sequential versus parallel - Naive way of formulating next-token prediction is as a sequential problem. Attention masks parallelise this. - RNNs do next-token prediction but their forward pass predicts tokens sequentially. - This means gradient descent needs to happen across many serial steps. GPUs are good for training parallel stuff not sequential stuff. - Vanishing gradients problem when doing gradient descent across many sequential steps. - Pay attention to what? - CNNs maintain hard-coded sliding windows of which tokens to pay attention to. - LSTMs and RNNs maintain a shared context that is reused for many tokens. - Attention layer can look at the tokens and use the tokens themselves to compute which tokens to pay attention to. (Remember `K,Q,V` are all a function of `X`) #### misc stuff in transformers tokenisation - create a vocabulary of ~100k most commonly used words and phrase - convert input into 1-hot encoding using this - basically "hello" will become [0 0 0 0 ....maybe 25k entries .... 0 0 1 0 0 ... maybe 75k entries ... 0] - why? - deep learning works on math, not words - english has less than 100k commonly used words, we can hard-code this into the model instead of training the model to figure this out on its own. - why not train it? don't know for sure positional embeddings - calculate some cosine thing of the token, and attach it to the token - ensures each token also now stores data of which position it is. imagine new input is: `my one name two is three alice four` - why? - don't know for sure - intuition: maybe humans speak differently at the start of a paragraph versus in between. so it's helpful to always remember where you are. RMS norm - divide each cell by root mean square of all cells in that row - ensures values remain between 0 and 1 - why? - don't know for sure - intuition: gradient descent is more well-behaved for values between 0 and 1 Residual layer - let's say we did some stuff: `Y = f(X)` - adding residual just means adding input back in: `Y_with_residual = Y + X = f(X) + X` - why? - don't know for sure - intuition: "exploding and vanishing gradients" - sometimes if you do gradient descent on weight matrixes across so many layers you get gradients that approach zero or infinity Mixture of experts - Not covering in this lecture N layers put together - In total there are N sequential layers of transformer blocks. So we are doing gradient descent across N layers to find optimal weight matrices in each layer. - Intuition for N layers: pay attention to nearby tokens, then not so nearby, then not so nearby #### typical hyperparams - number of layers - depends on model size - typically 32 to 128 layers - number of params - depends on model size - GPT2 XL (2019): 1.5B params - GPT3 (2020): 175B params - GPT3.5 based on GPT3 - GPT4 (2023): rumoured 1.8T params - o1, o3 based on GPT4 - GPT4.5 (2025): rumoured 12T params, of which 1T active params (mixture of experts) - bytes per param - training - typically float32 (4 bytes per weight) - mixed precision training is recent, for example deepseek - inference - quantisation works well: fp16, int8, int4, 1.58-bit - model size - model size in bytes = number of params * bytes per param How to pick number of params when training a new model - depends on data and compute available, versus data and compute required - data and compute required is calculated using chinchilla scaling law - typically compute has always been the bottleneck, not data - epoch.ai forecasts running out of internet data in 2028 - data required per param - (not very good) rule of thumb: 20 tokens/param * number of params - typically trained for one epoch - gradient descent is done on every token exactly once - compute required - (not very good) rule of thumb: 6 FLOP/param/token * number of params * number of tokens More resources - [chinchilla scaling law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_scaling_law#Chinchilla_scaling_(Hoffmann,_et_al,_2022)) - [Epoch.ai - past data and forecasts of FLOP, tokens, params](https://epoch.ai/trends) text_english/my_research/adaptive_worms_using_ai.md000644 000765 000024 00000004271 15177753505 023754 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-04-16 # Adaptive worms using AI Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - Contains dual-use cybersecurity knowledge Main - Normally worms spread in one of two ways: 1. Keep repeating the same technique that got them into the machine in the first place, to infect even more machines. For example, Shai-Hulud worm repeatedly targets npm package maintainers. 2. Notify an attacker-controlled machine and await further instructions from it. The attacker could do anything at this stage, such as lock the machine and ask ransom, include it as part of a botnet, or (most important for the current discussion) write a separate exploit or worm that can spread from that machine into even more machine. - My guess (haven't tested it out) is AI will make this last step more efficient. - Right now, the worm can only send data dumps to the attacker machine. For instance, it could send either a memory dump or a disk dump. Or it could use some simple heuristics to figure out what data is most important to send. Then the attacker has to sit and analyse everything and figure out what's the next step to spread the worm further. Do they use existing trusted connections, do they write a new exploit, and so on. - However, an AI that's actually good at cybersecurity could run on the compromised machine itself (or call openai/deepmind/etc servers), identify exactly which other machine or people trust this machine or person, which of those trusted connections can be exploited, perhaps even write the exploits on its own. For example, maybe this person publishes github repos that other people trust, maybe someone transfers files from this machine to another using a usb drive, maybe other people trust the gmail or slack messages sent by the person operating this machine and so on. - Maybe the attacker is still notified here, so the attacker decides whether to execute the exploit or not. After all, executing the exploit could reveal that the original machine was compromised, and there are pros/cons to this. - If you extrapolate this to the limit, you could end up with a sufficiently capable AI model taking over control of almost all machines on Earth. I am not sure if I want to extrapolate this idea that far, yet. text_english/my_research/flash_riots_against_the_chip_fabs_and_ai_company_offices_and_bsl4_labs.md000644 000765 000024 00000002603 15234175331 035203 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-04 ## Update - See also: [Should I promise to attempt an assassination or sabotage, as a hail mary strategy against ASI](./should_I_promise_to_attempt_an_assassination_or_sabotage_as_a_hail_mary_strategy_against_asi.md) --- 2026-03-25 # Flash riots against the chip fabs, and AI company offices, and BSL-4 labs? Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** - Thinking aloud. I may not endorse this after thinking a lot more. **I don't endorse anyone working on this as of today.** Main - What stops a famous youtuber from raising a mob to storm the chip fabs directly, or the compute clusters, or the AI company offices, or the BSL-4 labs? - Obviously eventually the armed forces will arrive and remove everyone. But, by then, the mob could destroy chip fabs, and compute clusters, and biotech equipment and cell cultures, thus forcing people working there to spend more years of their time to redo their work. Also, if there were any secrets obtainable from the physical premises, this mob could maybe obtain them. - It has be done in a flash instead of pre-meditated, if you don't want to be stopped. - See also: [Jan 6 riots incited by Trump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack), and [subsequent pardon of the militia groups involved](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack_defendants) text_english/my_research/I_wasted_time_trying_to_use_ffmpeg_as_a_video_editor.md000644 000765 000024 00000001715 15177753505 031644 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-10 # I wasted time trying to use ffmpeg as a video editor Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - target audience - This is mainly a note from my past self to my future self Main - I seem to have a very strong prior that I should try doing something with open source software with less lines of code, if possible. - I do think this mindset has some non-zero upsides, even in short ASI timelines. - But here I want to flag one specific way it was a downside, based on personal experience. - I spent atleast a couple months making youtube videos and trying to edit them using a custom wrapper I built on top of ffmpeg - After that, I used iMovie. It was way faster, and way easier, and also people around me immediately said that the production quality had improved. - (After that, I hired a video editor. I realised that if I can make my instructions dumb enough and repeatable enough, I don't need someone with a lot of skill to do what I was doing using iMovie.) text_english/my_research/incentives_and_culture_open_source_intel_agency.md000644 000765 000024 00000010777 15177753505 030740 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2025-06-13 # Incentives and culture - Open source intelligence agency Disclaimer - **Quick note** ## Summary - If you want to build open source intelligence agency to enable a world without secrets, it's not sufficient to figure out the tech to do it. Also need to figure out incentives and culture. - Incentives: Youtubers and journalists get lots of attention. Blockchain devs gets lots of capital. People doing whistleblowing or hacking or mirroring of info, don't have very good incentives as of 2025-06. Whistleblowing is not very expensive but cyberhacking is very expensive. I'm figuring out how to ensure reward exceeds cost for whistleblowers and cyberhackers. - Culture: I consider creating an ideology dangerous so I'm avoiding for now. This system collides with liberal consent norms of society, and secrecy norms of police/military. Hence it may be beneficial to create an ideology that's more powerful than existing ideologies such as liberalism or nationalism. I might create an ideology once I'm more confident it's a good thing to do. ## Main To reduce lead time in open source leaking of information, I need to figure out: - tech - incentives - culture I have not currently figured out incentives or culture as well as I would like to, in order to be confident in this as a political system. Tech - I've written many documents on this already. Working on it. Incentives - Data acquisition - Reducing hardware cost and software complexity will reduce cost placed on intermediaries in the system, such as people acquiring, transmitting, hosting and mirroring sensitive information. This cost is still non-zero though, and I'm yet to figure out a counterbalancing reward for doing this type of work. - Cyberhackers are well compensated for disclosing zero-days (be it by the defending or an attacking org), but not if they choose to use it themselves and publish data publicly for free. Typically finding zero-days for govt targets requires hundreds of researchers working full-time for multiple years, which requires a combination of significant funding and ideologically motivated effort. - Similarly, spies can be well compensated for disclosing info to foreign govt, but whistleblowers are not typically compensated for publishing info to public. (Wikileaks experimented with payments for whistleblowers.) - Medium and high attention on the data - Mirroring content to multiple non-allied nuclear states and making it searchable is sufficient to make it uncensorable as of 2025. - Many intermediary operators and deve teams typically don't get paid very well. Web crawlers/mirrors, torrent seeders, Tor nodes, blockchain nodes, blockchain relays and onramps, etc. - Youtubers and journalists acquire a lot of attention for publishing politically sensitive info. It is not obvious how much it is in a youtuber's self-interest to pass on some of the rewards back to people in previous steps, be it capital or attention (more specifically political legitimacy). Sometimes journalist orgs (such as the Intercept or wikileaks) have paid for legal defence of whistleblower. - Some blockchains (and their foundations and core dev teams) have lots of capital protecting them. It is not obvious how much it is in their self-interest to pass on some of these rewards back to people in previous steps. (Let's say if someone published documents to a blockchain.) Sometimes wealthy crypto donors have funded media efforts. Culture - I'm deliberately refraining from making too many ideological posts right now. - The strongest version of this system currently collides with liberal consent norms for privacy of citizens, and secrecy norms practised by military/intelligence and judiciary/police. - Besides liberalism, this system is neutral at best and actively hostile at worst to multiple dominant cultures in the world, including most political systems and religions and the institutions that defend them. Most systems have atleast some facts critical of their system that they would rather hide (personal view). - My personal view is that morality is less important to study and balance of power is more important to study. The cluster of moral arguments that are persuasive to me personally are arguments around how this will shift the distribution of power and the greater good this will create. This can be used to justify some of the harm (with harm measured as per existing moral systems). - Above arguments may not be persuasive to a broad audience though. If I wish to involve a broad audience, may require inventing ideology for that purpose. text_english/my_research/attack_them_move_by_move.md000644 000765 000024 00000010603 15177753505 024100 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-24 # Attack them move-by-move Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** - Thinking aloud here, I may not endorse these thoughts after thinking a lot more. - **Not fact checked** Main - It is a common belief that people like Julian Assange didn't achieve all that much, because everyone already knows that the US intelligence community governs a brutal hegemon that often starts wars out of self-interest, and is sometimes irrational even from that position of self-interest. Everyone already knows this, so what did specific whistleblowers achieve? - I seem to disagree. - I think atleast one (out of multiple reasons) I disagree is that it is different to cyberattack/whistleblow on someone once and show their high-level picture, and it is entirely different to watch move and countermove in real time. - As an analogy, imagine you are playing chess against an opponent, but you can't see their pieces. - A one-off cyberattack or whistleblower could reveal that, boom, your opponent has 7 knights and 23 rooks. After the attack, the board goes dark again. - This knowledge is valuable but not that much. The world already knows the US govt has lots of knights and rooks. - However, imagine that for every move you make, you can see the exact countermove the opponent makes, but they can't see your moves. This is where a lot of the value lies. - Coming back to Assange - Assange also leaked details about the specific people pursuing him, including the names of people in private security firm hired to surveil him in the Ecuador embassy, the names of specific people who made plans to assassinate him, the people internal to his team who broke away, the specific leverage that the US intelligence community might have had over the New York Times editor, and so on. - Some other whistleblowers have also revealed such move-by-move details. For instance Ellsberg's team (if I remember correctly, not fact checked info) revealed the entire plan by CIA agent Howard Hunt to drug him with LSD, break into his psychiatrist's office, and so on. - Coming back to the anti-ASI movement - If I choose to start an independent hacker group to cyberattack the US IC, and do this on behalf of the anti-ASI political movement, then I will have to reveal a lot of this move and countermove information if I want to succeed. - Right now the anti-ASI movement doesn't have much political power, and even the political power of the anti-AI politicians is modest. This power will increase with time, with every passing month of AI capabilities advances, and hence moves and countermoves will be made. - **I would not be surprised if this sort of move versus countermove info is in fact the single most important piece of info to leak.** Who in the US IC is specifically protecting pro-AI politicians and billionaires, which contractors do they hire to do it, who is blocking the political campaigns of anti-AI politicians from getting funding or brokering deals with media houses, and so on. - When I say most important, I mean even more important than other pieces of info like how the US IC is (yet again) breaking US democratic safeguards, or any allegations of personal abuse (like rape or similar), or names of people who are pro-human extinction. - A lot of this real-time move versus countermove information got deliberately redacted by Greenwald and Poitras in the Snowden leaks. I am now starting to wonder if this was the information that was actually most important to leak. Suggestion - **What if I just go leak this move-versus-countermove information and leak nothing else? Does this make me feel better?** To be very specific, I only leak information about situations where anti-AI politicians get blocked from acquiring more political power, such as when their funding gets blocked or their allies are chilled via legal threats or they are physically intimidated and so on. - Maybe I don't even need to leak other info like who is pro-extinction or who is a rapist or whatever. - I still have a fair bit of hope that if we actually had a functional democracy in US, the anti-ASI politicians can still get sufficient political power in time to stop the race. Maybe I just need to remove all the hurdles on the path to them getting enough political power to get the job done. Testing - I need a way to test all these competing hypotheses without literally cyberattacking a govt. **Think more here** text_english/my_research/my_letter_to_richard_ngo.md000644 000765 000024 00000032413 15177753505 024116 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-27 # My letter to Richard Ngo on US politics Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** - target audience - hopefully richard ngo directly, but otherwise this will just stay in the public - I have never stepped foot in US, and don't have a friend circle in the US. This is a very outside view perspective on US politics - **Update - I dislike how this writeup didn't seem to address Richard Ngo's core objections, so I probably won't send it. Will edit it more first.** - To do for self - respond more to [5](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMVW6M5gilk) ## Conclusion for Richard Ngo - You correctly observe that across all three socioeconomic classes, across both genders, across all religions, across all nations, across various time periods: people's political beliefs only make contact with reality when they personally suffer, otherwise they are free to be quite unhinged. Primary reasons for suffering are lack of physical safety, lack of basic resources, and social ostracism. - If you want to figure out "virtues" for a uniting political ideology, figure out how to have a good long-term relationship with your own parent / spouse / child, **despite** them following different norms around sex/family/parenting than you do. - Differences of practices in sex/family/parenting is a major source of social ostracism, it is a civilisation-scale problem not just a US-specific problem, and it has be fixed at the object-level not in some meta-level discussion. Practice not theory is what matters. As long as this divide is not fixed, there will always be politicians and billionaires who use all sorts of proxy memes to exploit this real divide that exists in society, and compete for their own power. - You yourself are the best person to run this experiment on, because you have a lot more data available on your own life as compared to other people's lives. - If you are serious about solving this, then ofcourse you should read about other people's lives. If you take this further, you will probably want to build what I call a "particle collider for social dark matter", which in simple words means you get a lot of therapists/priests/lawyers/spies/etc in a room and have them talk to each other a lot about topics that polite society does not publicly talk about (there's a standard list of topics). - But ultimately, you probably can't solve this via theory alone, many decades of practice may be required before humanity converges to good answers here. - I'm not trying to solve sex/family/parenting. In my view, there's no time for me to solve all that given how soon ASI could be. But if your intellectual curiosity feels called to solve this, maybe you can give it a shot. - Update - I just realised this is a good razor for anyone in the EA/LW cluster trying to build uniting ideology, not just Richard Ngo. ## Main - I just read [1](https://postagi.org/sandiego25) [2](https://www.mindthefuture.info/p/power-lies-trembling) [3](https://www.mindthefuture.info/p/elite-coordination-via-the-consensus) [4](https://www.mindthefuture.info/p/on-pessimization) - I think Richard Ngo's writings on politics are important, and I have learned valuable things from them. - **That being said, I feel like a lot of his writings on US politics are mostly sitting at the meta level, and not enough at the object-level.** I think this is one of my main differences in worldview from Richard Ngo. All your game theory has to cash out in terms of object-level reality. There is an actual truth to politics, and that is people's internal experiences. People's internal experiences and subsequent worldviews are mostly shaped by periods of intense suffering. Not all of politics is just memes floating detached from any ground reality. - Main causes of suffering for people (all this directly follows from Maslow's heirarchy): - lack of physical safety - Lower and middle class both don't want to feel threatened by actual violence from their neighbours, police, etc - Upper class is basically immune to physical violence, actual executions of elites are rare even during civil war, regime change, etc - money - The lower class will literally starve and die (or get imprisoned or become "homeless" in the US in particular) if they don't get enough money - The middle class would still like if they could do less work and get more free time (but beyond this, acquiring money is just a social signalling game or to escape social ostracism) - The upper class is either people with inherited wealth who go with the default which is increasing wealth for them and/or their family, or people who climbed there from the middle class (usually because they were so desperate to have some ideas Win in society that they suffered for 5-10 years to do). - social ostracism - In lower and middle classes both, the primary reasons for social ostracism long-term are either money problems, or differences of opinion on sex/family/parenting. - US political divides (democratic v republican) are deep down religious divides (christian v atheist) and religious divides are deep down divides on the topics of sex/family/parenting. This also true for the politics of many other countries. - Sex and class - The lower class has to follow the consensus of power, but power here means their parents, relatives, other neighbours in their town etc. They literally lack money to leave town or city. This means following whatever are the sex/family/parenting norms there. - The middle / upper-middle classes can choose to acquire enough money to buy their way out of their family or town, and self-select into a friend group with other norms on sex/family/parenting. - The upper class is predominantly run by men who want wives who can be entrusted with their secrets, because literally their entire empires could fall if their secrets came out. They want children who can be groomed into successors for their empires. They don't really have the luxury to invest their attention on any other type of sex/family/parenting arrangement, if they are truly ambitious. - Privacy and pre-computation processes, and "consensus of power" aka Keynesian beauty contests - Everyone wants privacy to process implications of their own experiences, then pre-compute what is the best face to show in front of their family/friends/etc. Everyone wants privacy to do this pre-computation to protect their reputation. - Lower class has no privacy and hence bad pre-computation. Expect a manufactured "consensus" to always be there, and for minority to hide their opinions. See also: Most of the US lower class identifies as christian. I suspect this is because US lower class atheists who want the sex/family/parenting norms of the upper-middle class atheists have to hide this opinion from their family/friends/etc, atleast until they make more money. - Middle/upper-middle has some ability to climb out and keep privacy, and self-select which group they want to affiliate with versus not. There are hence a lot of groups with a lot of separate "consensus" and most of these are fragile. However there are a lot of intellectuals and activists with principled beliefs, that they won't abandon the first time they encounter serious suffering (see above for for most common sources of suffering). - Upper class has an extremely high level of privacy if they want it. They can keep secrets and run precomputation processes spanning decades or even centuries. Ambitious politicians/billionaires often form coalitions with other politicians/billionaires and they may need to shared secrets over many decades within their coalition. Ambitious elites thus have to maintain a "consensus of power" that controls media houses, academia funding, military/intelligence circles, the judiciary and actual politicians across all federal levels. Unambitious politicians/billionaires can do whatever they like in complete privacy (including but not limited to actual rape and murder). **I presume that this consensus of power is what Richard Ngo is primarily interested in understanding.** - Applying all this to US politics: - I asked gpt-5.4 for top political issues mentioned in US presidential speeches 2024: Cost of living, immigration, foreign policy, rule of law, reproductive rights, energy/trade/tariffs/anti-China - Cost of living - This is obviously most important to people in lower class, for reasons explained above. I would guess this is single-voter issue for people of lower class who feel they have ability to climb out, but only depending on who comes to power. Also important to middle class but it depends, and can become less important than other concerns. Also note that lower class votes based on the consensus in their immediate social circle, people don't vote as individualist. - Immigration - US atheists like atheist immigrants from other countries, US christians like christian immigrants from other countries, all people in US dislike or tolerate hindu and muslim immigrants. Most people don't care about lives of people thousands of kilometres away. Most people don't even care about whether god exists or not, or who made the Earth millenia ago or whatever. Most people do care about whether their own sex/family/parenting norms will be made easier or harder by their neighbours (who could be immigrants). Most people care about physical safety from violent immigrants. Atheists are also now subfragmented into those with different sex/family/parenting norms, and those with guns versus not, and into all sorts of ideologies that have never made contact with reality. So it is possible, for example, that a US atheist who likes casual sex dislikes an atheist immigrant who does not, for example. Or US atheist who wants women to have equal role in parenting dislikes an atheist immigrant who wants the father to have disproportionate role in parenting. - Foreign policy - See again, most people genuinely don't care about the lives of people thousands of kilometres away. What they are primarily concerned with is whether their own government responds to their interests or not, and if the govt is persistently pro-war when they are anti-war, this causes them issue. Also foreign policy, atleast when presented in front of the public, becomes yet another signalling game tied to immigration. "I don't want immediate neighbours on my street to follow Islamic norms around sex/family/parenting so I will vote for a President that bombs Muslim countries, although I dont really know or care either way what is going on in those Muslim countries." Most of the middle and lower classes subscribe to deontological norms around violence, and don't get to see immediate benefit from the violence. - Anti-China - US christians are anti-China because China is atheist/buddhist and they know nothing about Chinese population. Most US atheists across lower and middle classes genuinely don't care either way what happens to China, they have more immediate concerns. - Reproductive rights - It should be very obvious by now this is again just difference of approach to sex/family/parenting. - Rule of law - People are concerned about members of their own class but different political group turning violent against them. Otherwise "rule of law" is just a buzzword to get one president elected versus the other. Also everyone likes democracy, as in, everyone likes politicians/billionaires who actually responds to their interests. If the politicians/billionaires are actually responding to your interests already, you are less likely to have a principled support for "rule of law" or "democracy" or whatever, and may just be fine with authoritarianism. - Everyone understands their problems really well and nobody understands solutions - Money unites people across their class. - The entire lower class is united in wanting more money, and has no time to waste in politics of what other classes get or don't get. They will enter a labour union iff they personally or affected, and not otherwise. - The entire middle class is united in wanting more money for themselves and their class, don't care about the lower class, and neutral or opposed to the upper class having more money. - The entire upper class is united in wanting more money for their class, and less money for the other classes. - All three classes, and both religions, and both genders, etc - everyone is illiterate when it comes to economics and finance. - Nobody can explain basics of monetary theory and eurodollar markets, or supply-demand curves, or price of energy and how this affects industrial society. Almost everyone has deranged solutions for how to modify the economy, and most people's ideas never come into contact with reality. - The primary exception is the upper class. When a coalition of politicians/billionaires take somes economic theory seriously, this has multi-generational consequences for everyone in their country (and other countries in their sphere of influence). - Sex/family/parenting is a big divider between the lower and the middle class, and within the middle class itself. - Most people don't understand long-term consequences of casual sex. Most people don't understand how to do long-term marriages that don't break apart in 5-10 years. Very few people are truly "successful" on this lens, atleast if I define "success" as being outlier good at it, not just getting the average outcome of your friend group or class. text_english/my_research/my_views_on_lesswrong.md000644 000765 000024 00000025570 15211454613 023503 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-08 ## Update - LW mod Oliver Habryka has threatened to ban me on Lesswrong. [Link to discussion thread](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mrBZh7YG4nmcjAcof/xpostah-s-shortform?commentId=CWpS3ygEB86AREqSM) - Seems likely I will not be posting on LW more. And seems like relevant information for anyone reading this post. --- 2026-03-15 ## Update - I have talked to more people in LW ideological cluster, and they have given me concrete reasons why they don't support an AI pause movement: - Atleast one person I've spoken to thinks AI pause movement if successful, will create a dictatorship, and this dictator will then likely build ASI anyway. - Atleast one person I've spoken to thinks getting majority of public to support AI pause movement is hard, and marginally spreading more awareness means more people working at the AI companies. - Atleast one person I've spoken to would rather roll the dice on getting some chance of utopia and some chance of extinction now, over a pause that is indefinite and leads to ASI not being built. - I have a bunch of disagreements with these views, but can't sit and type all of them now. - **All-in-all I think I should lowkey apologise for being this uncharitable to people in this post.** - **To be clear, many people's ultimate reasons are still groupthink and cowardice and unwillingness to be disliked by family and friends.** - **But some other people have more nuanced views which are worth arguing against more directly.** --- 2025-11-24, lots of minor updates until 2026-03-24 # My views on Lesswrong Disclaimer - **Quick Note** ## Appreciation for LW - I think Eliezer Yudkowsky is one of the most brilliant philosophers to ever live. - I think Lesswrong is one of the few places on Earth that is actually focussed on important questions. Attention is the scarcest resource humans have, and they are directing it to the correct places. - I think there are a few core insights you can take away from LW that are basically correct and have unimaginably large implications. - Extended Church-Turing thesis. The entire universe is deterministic due to laws of physics, and so are human brains. Penrose quantum bullshit doesn't work. Any insight you have about any of the following topics - free will, consciousness, moral values, moral patienthood, intelligence - has to reconcile with the fact that the ultimate instantiation of this thing is a Turing machine whose code can be written down on a piece of paper. - Hamming question is important and can be applied to all of life philosophy, not just specific branches of the tech tree. "What is the most important question in scientific field and why aren't you working on it?" -> "What is the most important question in life and why aren't you working on it?" You can recursively apply the Hamming question to your actions in life until you realise most technology does not matter much, most politics does not matter much, and a few things matter a lot. - Intelligence is what separates humans from apes, and allows us to invent both technology and politics at scale. Intelligence-enhancing tech (artificial superintelligence, human genetic engineering, whole brain emulation) is deserves more attention than most other technologies. - Many of the experiences we consider innate to human nature - like death, sex, parenting etc - can be radically transformed with sufficient application of technology. This is core to what enabled Yudkowsky to build a religion that simultaneously fears and worships the Machine God. I too both fear and worship the Machine God, despite not following Yudkowsky's religion. - Yudkowsky keeps asking "and then what?" on hypotheticals until the heat death of the universe. He is not satisfied with leaving problems unsolved or assuming problems will be solved by future generations. For instance, even below I have left some questions about human genetic engineering open and have not tried to solve them myself. But someone like Yudkowsky will feel maybe even more driven than me to actually resolve those uncertainties. - See also: [Yudkowsky talking to Paul Graham on ambition](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4509934) ## Why I don't affiliate too much with LW today Differences in actions from LW consensus - LW has a lot of low-agency Thinkers (not Doers) who want to stay in a comfortable tech job or AI capabilities job, and will retroactively invent justifications for why that this is the best thing to do. - Get their feedback, sure, but don't make the mistake of thinking you should necessarily become like them. - Many people on LW are not trying to create a political movement to pause AI research, that is explicitly hostile to AI companies. - I'm not sure why this is, some of my guesses are listed in the next section. - I don't want to waste too much of my time on these people, because I have limited time to build this movement. - To put it in LW jargon - "Using mistake theory to fix AI risk is a mistake, now is the time to use conflict theory" Differences in opinions from LW consensus - I support a worldwide ban on deployment of superintelligent AI for atleast next 10 years. (Strong opinion) - I think loss of control of a rogue ASI is possible, and could lead to human extinction. - Solving technical AI alignment will not change my position as I also think ASI could lead to a small number of people overthrowing the US and Chinese govts, and establishing a world dictatorship stable for centuries at minimum. They could attain immortality via mind uploading. They could enforce their control via hyperpersuasion or automated military or some other way. A good analogy for hyperpersuasion would be religion, but persuasive enough it actually gets 100% of humanity converted to it. (Strong opinion) - I support a worldwide ban on deployment of human genetic engineering for atleast next 10 years. (Weak opinion) - [Politics of human genetic engg](./politics_of_human_genetic_engg.md) - I do not ascribe to utilitarianism, longtermism or universe colonisation as my primary life philosophy. - I would like to add value to society at scale, and prefer solving bigger problems over smaller ones. I like to think long-term on scale of centuries not billions of years. I am yet to fully figure out my values. - I think attention is worth more than capital. - I think acquiring capital not attention might be a common mistake elites in SF are making. You can pay or threaten someone into do a thing, you can't pay them to actually care. - Religious leaders (actually persuade someone to change their values) > Politicians (use violence and social disapproval as incentive) > Billionaires (use money as incentive) - Yudkowsky has made a successful attempt to start a religion for atheists. I don't ascribe to it, but I think more religion for atheists is good. - I think the average person on LW does not understand politics well. My goals are explicitly political hence it again makes less sense for me to engage. ## Why do many Lesswrong community not support a pause AI political movement against the AI companies? I am not sure, so I only have guesses. - Hypothesis 1: Many people at Lesswrong are low-agency people who want to keep their comfortable tech job and their current friend circles. They are not that ambitious or risk-taking. They either don't have deeper desires in life or are not in touch with what those desires are. - Hypothesis 2: Many people at Lesswrong value community, harmony or freedom, more than they value acquiring power. If you value acquiring power above all else, you will be willing to sacrifice more of your other moral ideals in order to Win. "Rationality is about Winning" is an idea many people on lesswrong don't take seriously. - Hypothesis 3: Many people at Lesswrong are not willing to cut off their friendships with researchers inside the AI companies, or natsec and policy people inside the US govt. This also comes down to not caring much about acquiring power, because if you care enough about acquiring power you will be willing to cut people off to do it. - Hypothesis 4: LW is fundamentally married to (IMO bad) idea of always using mistake theory, and never using conflict theory. - Hypothesis 5: Status dynamics in Silicon Valley, everyone gets "bad vibes" from politics despite understanding nothing about how politics works or how much power it has or how to do it with integrity. Yudkowsky has changed his mind about engaging with politics but his followers haven't. Has anyone on lesswrong written actual posts why they are against a pause AI political movement? If I got more information I could be more charitable to people there. ## Opinion on LW mods - I have not had a lot of personal interactions with them but I generally think Oliver Habryka, Ben Pace and Raymond Arnold are acting in good faith. - I don't directly blame them for all groupthink and cowardice on LW. - I do get the sense their life philosophy is very pro-longtermist utilitarianism and universe colonisation and immortality and stuff, and I am less motivated by these drives than they might be. --- 2026-02-13 ## Update ## Why not just engage in good faith? Main - I increasingly seem to distrust lesswrongers who say that what they actually most care about is utilitarianism or theories of change or lesswrong discourse norms. I'm like no actually, you are either lying to me or lying to yourself about what you most care about. - What you most care about is likely either not disappointing your friends or partner, or acquiring power of some sort. (See the list of hypothesis above.) - If I showed that you taking lesswrong discourse norms to their logical conclusion means that you will die at a younger age (even sooner than when ASI comes), you will be broke and all the people you most love will come to hate you, then you are not actually willing to commit to lesswrong discource norms anymore. - "Even if you say you are willing to commit this hard to these norms, I don't trust you. I don't even trust that you yourself understand yourself that deeply to know the answer to that. I am operating from that high level a suspicion here." Random example of what I am talking about - [My comment](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mrBZh7YG4nmcjAcof/xpostah-s-shortform?commentId=vaHqiowEwFqA7kfo2) versus [Richard Ngo's comment](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FuGfR3jL3sw6r8kB4/richard-ngo-s-shortform?commentId=BqaNH48wyHjtJZraT) - We both seem to be pointing out that utilitarianism is stupid, organising social movements is not straightforwardy consequentialist, geopolitics and politics matter, and that there is direct commonality in what happened with EA malaria aid and EA AI policymaking. But my comment got downvoted and his got upvoted. - This is not an isolated comment but a consistent pattern. - My best guess for why this is happening is that Richard Ngo is in-person and friends with a bunch of people doing the voting, whereas I am some random stranger online. I could be wrong about this guess. text_english/my_research/what_happened_to_the_rest_of_the_snowden_files.md000644 000765 000024 00000005433 15177753505 030524 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-10 minor updates 2026-03-04 # What happened to the rest of the Snowden files? Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Facts that are public consensus - We know that Snowden took hundreds of thousands of classified files on a disk on his flight to Hong Kong. - We know that atleast a few journalists like Greenwald and Poitras actually collected a large number of files in Hong Kong immediately. - We know that they flew back immediately after receiving the files. - We know that they gave a large number of files back to their editors respectively. - We know that only a very small number of these files (less than 50) were ever published publicly. - We know that Snowden flew to Russia immediately - We know that Snowden didn't plan on permanently staying in Russia, but ended up stranded on purpose by US govt. He got atleast a bit lucky this way, because Russia was one of the few countries actually willing to offer asylum. - We know that people from intelligence visited the offices of all these media houses, and destroyed all copies of the files they found, and interrogated a number of people. Questions - Did Greenwald and Poitras receive literally every single file Snowden took, or did Snowden also keep some files for himself? Did the editors of the Guardian and WaPo also receive literally every single file? How many people at these orgs received the files? - I seem to have a general prior that their editors probably received the files. - I seem to have a general prior that compartmentalisation at many of these media houses is shit, in a way that is hard to fix. But I also can't explain why I believe this, quickly. I'll do that later maybe. - Why did Greenwald and Poitras choose not to release more files? - Was the reason closer to moral concerns, or political and reputational concerns for their own media houses? - Or are they actually still holding on to these files as a deadman's switch to protect Snowden? - Or is there something else going on? - How many files were taken to Russia? - How much information from the files was memorised by Snowden himself, such that the Russian govt likely has it via interrogation even if Greenwald and Snowden didn't personally take the files? - If Putin did get a few files or a lot of files, how exactly did he use this information? - Did intelligence successfully interrogate everyone? Did someone successfully lie to them and keep a copy of the files anyway? For instance either Greenwald or Poitras, or a staff member at these media houses. - (If any of these people are actually reading this, this is not an accusation. I'm genuinely curious because I lack data.) - I currently assign low but not negligible probability that someone slipped past the interrogation dragnet, as in they either lied or weren't interrogated hard enough. text_english/my_research/lw_blogs_scrape.md000644 000765 000024 00000011743 15177753505 022221 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-01-18 ## Update I also submitted this blog list to searchmysite.net, so you should find most of these blogs in their list. --- 2025-06-10 # LW blogs scrape Disclaimer - **Quick note** incomplete, can contain errors, unlikely to fix https://www.yudkowsky.net https://gwern.net/ https://kajsotala.fi https://www.astralcodexten.com http://www.weidai.com/ https://lukemuehlhauser.com https://www.mccaughan.org.uk/g/ https://vladimirslepnev.me https://sethaherd.com https://jimrandomh.tumblr.com https://muckrack.com/thane-ruthenis/articles https://ailabwatch.substack.com/ https://www.lsusr.com https://theeffortlessway.com https://www.cognitiverevolution.ai/mind-hacked-by-ai-a-cautionary-tale-from-a-lesswrong-users-confession/ http://zackmdavis.net/blog/ https://benjaminrosshoffman.com https://acesounderglass.com/ https://www.benkuhn.net/ https://benlandautaylor.com/ https://thezvi.wordpress.com/ https://eukaryotewritesblog.wordpress.com/ https://flightfromperfection.com/ https://meteuphoric.wordpress.com/ https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/ https://sideways-view.com/ https://rationalconspiracy.com/ http://unremediatedgender.space/ https://unstableontology.com/ https://sjbyrnes.com/agi.html https://sites.google.com/view/afdago/home https://paulfchristiano.com https://paisri.org/ https://katjagrace.com https://blog.ai-futures.org/p/our-first-project-ai-2027 https://www.mariushobbhahn.com/aboutme/ http://rootsofprogress.org/ https://www.bhauth.com/ https://turntrout.com/research https://www.jefftk.com https://virissimo.info/documents/resume.html https://bmk.sh https://metr.org/ https://kennaway.org.uk http://1a3orn.com/ https://acritch.com https://lironshapira.substack.com https://coral-research.org https://substack.com/@theojaffee https://matthewbarnett.substack.com/ https://www.beren.io/ https://www.cold-takes.com https://newsletter.safe.ai https://www.metaculus.com/accounts/profile/116023/ https://www.patreon.com/profile/creators?u=132372822 https://medium.com/inside-the-simulation https://www.lesswrong.com/users/unexpectedvalues?from=search_page http://markxu.com/about https://www.overcomingbias.com https://www.vox.com/authors/miranda-dixon-luinenburg https://www.getkratom.com https://github.com/YairHalberstadt https://www.scott.garrabrant.com https://arundelo.com http://unstableontology.com/ https://mealsquares.com/pages/our-team https://evhub.github.io https://formethods.substack.com/ https://www.nosetgauge.com https://substack.com/@euginenier https://drethelin.com https://entersingularity.wordpress.com https://doofmedia.com https://mindingourway.com/about/ https://jacquesthibodeau.com https://www.neelnanda.io/about https://niplav.site/index.html https://jsteinhardt.stat.berkeley.edu https://www.jessehoogland.com http://therisingsea.org https://www.stafforini.com/ https://acsresearch.org https://elityre.com https://www.barnes.page/ https://peterbarnett.org/ https://joshuafox.com/ https://itskatydee.com/ https://ethanperez.net/ https://owainevans.github.io/ https://chrislakin.blog/ https://colewyeth.com/ https://www.admonymous.co/ryankidd44 https://ninapanickssery.substack.com/ https://joecarlsmith.com http://coinlist.co/ https://davidmanheim.com https://github.com/SarahNibs https://malmesbury.substack.com https://www.admonymous.co/rafaelharth https://dynomight.net/ http://nepenthegame.com/ https://github.com/RDearnaley https://graehl.org https://nikolajurkovic.com https://www.julianmorrison.com https://avturchin.livejournal.com https://www.perfectlynormal.co.uk https://www.250bpm.com https://www.youtube.com/@TsviBT https://adamjermyn.com https://www.elilifland.com/ https://zhd.dev https://ollij.fi https://arthurconmy.github.io/about/ https://www.youtube.com/@RationalAnimations/featured https://cims.nyu.edu/~sbowman/ https://crsegerie.github.io/ https://escapingflatland.substack.com/ https://qchu.wordpress.com https://dtch1997.github.io/ https://math.berkeley.edu/~vaintrob/ https://mutualunderstanding.substack.com https://longerramblings.substack.com https://peterwildeford.substack.com https://juliawise.net https://uli.rocks/about/ https://stephencasper.com/ https://engineeringideas.substack.com/ https://homosabiens.substack.com https://martin-soto.com/ https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com https://www.brendanlong.com https://foresight.org/fellowship/2024-fellow-bogdan-ionut-cirstea/ https://davekasten.substack.com https://datapacrat.com http://admonymous.co/nat_m https://mesaoptimizer.com/ https://ae.studio/team https://davidad.org https://heimersheim.eu https://nunosempere.com/ https://www.thinkingmuchbetter.com/nickai/ http://kilobug.free.fr/code/ http://vkrakovna.wordpress.com/ https://www.conjecture.dev/ https://ejenner.com https://morphenius.substack.com/ https://gradual-disempowerment.ai https://www.clubhouse.com/@patrissimo https://mattmacdermott.com https://knightcolumbia.org https://www.openphilanthropy.org/about/team/lukas-finnveden/ text_english/my_research/ai_timelines_talk_20250802.md000644 000765 000024 00000015266 15201311212 023464 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2025-08-07 # AI timelines talk (presented on 2025-08-03) Time: 20 minutes Pre-reqs - Recommended if you have used LLM-based AI (like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) before in your life - Machine learning knowledge not required for first half of talk, recommended for second half of the talk #### My top-level views Assuming no ban or pause on AI research enforced via US-China international treaty - P(ASI deployed by 2030) = ~25% - P(ASI deployed by 2030, and humanity extinct) = ~10% - P(ASI deployed by 2030, and >100-year stable dictatorship) = ~10% Assume wide error bars on these numbers Definition of superintelligent AI: AI that is better than the **best** humans at **every** task humans care about completing. Relevant intuitions for what I actually imagine when I imagine superintelligent AI: Humans from 1900s experiencing entire 1900-2025 inventions in one year, chimpanzees being exposed to a human being ## Datapoint 1: Other experts [Video: Experts' AI timelines (~1 min)](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/video_html/main/experts_ai_timelines_short_20250714.html) [Video: Experts' AI extinction risk (~1 min)](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/video_html/main/experts_ai_xrisk_horizontal_short_20250730.html) If you think these clips are cherrypicked, fake, etc you can watch the full interviews linked below. Signed letters: [Dan Hendrycks' CAIS letter](https://safe.ai/work/statement-on-ai-risk), [FLI Pause letter](https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/) Homework - [Experts' AI extinction risk (10 min)](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/video_html/main/experts_ai_xrisk_20250729.html) - [Elon Musk, full interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2ZBEC16yH4), [Geoffrey Hinton, full interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giT0ytynSqg), [Yoshua Bengio, full interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe9QSCF-d88), [Ilya Sutskever, full interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n13GppYIMg4), [Eliezer Yudkowsky, full interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QmDcQIvSDc) - [Lesswrong forum](https://lesswrong.com) ## Datapoint 2: Try the models yourself [Try GPT2 (launched 2019)](https://gpt2.samuelshadrach.com) [Try GPT4.5 and o3 (launched 2025) on OpenAI playground](https://platform.openai.com) Homework - [OpenRouter](https://openrouter.ai) lets you try new models - [vast.ai vllm template](https://docs.vast.ai/vllm-llm-inference-and-serving) lets you host many older models, if you are a developer. ## Datapoint 3: Argument from Speed - LLMs can produce atleast [300 tokens per second](https://bounded-regret.ghost.io/how-fast-can-we-perform-a-forward-pass/) sequentially compared to 3 tokens per second for human speech. - Today's LLMs lack memory from previous forward passes, and they cannot solve long horizon tasks. Imagine these problems were fixed. - Running at this speed, you can compress 300 years of technological progress into 3 years. - This is especially true in fields like mathematics, software or human persuasion, where the speed of the real world "lab" that verifies your guesses is not a bottleneck. --- Technical part of this document starts here. ## Datapoint 4: Model scaling #### Datapoint 4a: Try old and new models Homework - Try GPT2, GPT3, GPT4, GPT4.5 #### Datapoint 4b: Chinchilla scaling law predicts loss Chinchilla scaling predicts loss accurately upto atleast 3 decimal places As per [EpochAI replication attempt, chinchilla scaling law](https://epoch.ai/blog/chinchilla-scaling-a-replication-attempt) ``` L(N,D) = 1.8172 + 482.01/N^0.3478 + 2085.43/D^0.3658 ``` Number of params, depends on model size - GPT2 XL (2019): 1.5B params. Estimated training ~10^20 FLOP - GPT3 (2020): 175B params - GPT3.5 based on GPT3 - GPT4 (2023): rumoured 1.8T params - o1, o3 based on GPT4 - GPT4.5 (2025): rumoured 12T params, of which 1T active params (mixture of experts). Estimated training ~10^26 FLOP. Homework - See my older document for this - Chinchilla scaling law 2022 paper #### Datapoint 4c: Loss does not predict capabilities Experts have been consistently surprised over past 6 years as to which capabilities would unlock on which year. Very few got all the predictions right, and those that did (example: Ilya Sutskever, Daniel Kokojatilo) are bullish on further AI progress. #### Datapoint 4d: Scale up on compute in future [xAI Memphis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf8EPSBZU7Y) spent $7B to train grok-3 [OpenAI Stargate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhIJs4zbH0o) will spend $100B annual, based on commitment from Masayoshi Sun (Softbank) and Larry Ellison (Oracle). World GDP is $80 trillion, we probably will spend somewhere between $0.1-10 trillion on training. This is 10-1000x more compute than largest training run as of today. #### Datapoint 4e: Model scaling might (???) be saturating People say GPT4.5 is not significantly better than GPT4, hence we are saturating this curve. However see previous point, we still have lots of compute left to go that can counteract this. ## Datapoint 5: RL scaling #### Datapoint 5a: Try models yourself Try GPT4, try o1, try o3 #### Datapoint 5b: log curve for RL scaling We have only 1 year of past data, this means any prediction based on this has wide error bars Homework - Benchmarks - [OpenAI solves ARC-AGI by Francois Chollet](https://x.com/fchollet/status/1870169764762710376) - [Deepmind gets IMO silver medal using similar approach](https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/ai-solves-imo-problems-at-silver-medal-level/), OpenAI now has IMO gold medal - [OpenAI and xAI get high scores on Humanity's Last Exam by Dan Hendrycks]((https://lastexam.ai)) - Some published curves - [Toby Ord's inference scaling curve](https://www.tobyord.com/writing/inference-scaling-and-the-log-x-chart) - [OpenAI's inference scaling curve](https://arcprize.org/blog/oai-o3-pub-breakthrough) - [METR's proposed correlation between inference scaling and time horizon of task](https://metr.org/blog/2025-03-19-measuring-ai-ability-to-complete-long-tasks/) #### Datapoint 5c: scale up on compute in future Cost per task - Today - o1 or o3 in day-to-day use is $1 to $10 per task. - ARC benchmark was solved using over $1000 per task. - Max cost per task tried is below $100k per task. - Future - On high value tasks like new R&D (solve cancer, do AI R&D, etc), it may even be worth spending $1 billion per task. This is atleast 5 orders of magnitude more than current $100k. ## Datapoint 6: RL scaling has worked before Update: This was not presented at the talk on 2025-08-07, but I'm including it anyway. Even before LLMs were invented, we have solved all games by scaling RL with long time horizon and large amount of compute - poker 1v1, DOTA, Starcraft, Go, Chess. This is evidence indicating RL scales. text_english/my_research/indian_atheist_political_leaders.md000644 000765 000024 00000001165 15177753505 025573 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-21 # Indian atheist political leaders Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - I live in India. For reasons of safety, I will not talk a lot about religion in India Main - I recommend reading the following. (All books available on anna's archive) - "Why I am an atheist?" by Bhagat Singh - "Letters from a father to his daughter" by Jawaharlal Nehru. Atleast the first few chapters on evolution. - "Toward freedom" by Jawaharlal Nehru. Just do Ctrl+F 'religion' and read the relevant sections. "XXXVI What is religion?" section deals directly religion, communal riots, and Nehru's religious differences with Gandhi. text_english/personal/._.DS_Store000644 000765 000024 00000000170 15261244503 017727 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 Mac OS X  2Fx @ATTRxxtext_english/personal/PaxHeader/.DS_Store000644 000765 000024 00000000321 15261244503 021461 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 30 mtime=1791314243.785130624 24 SCHILY.fflags=hidden 85 LIBARCHIVE.xattr.com.apple.FinderInfo=ICAgICAgICBAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 70 SCHILY.xattr.com.apple.FinderInfo= @ text_english/personal/.DS_Store000644 000765 000024 00000014004 15261244503 017513 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 Bud1%  @ @ @ @ E%DSDB` @ @ @text_english/personal/about_me_personal_2.md000644 000765 000024 00000145206 15264336713 022312 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-10-16 # About me (Personal) - page 2 ## Disclaimer - **target audience (page 2) - strictly myself.** I may or may not be open to discussing stuff here even with friends. I might not discuss stuff here with strangers. - See also: [I don't discuss my personal life with strangers](./main/I_dont_discuss_my_personal_life_with_strangers.md) - See also: [I write about my issues because solved things are not worth writing about](./main/I_write_about_my_issues_because_solved_things_are_not_worth_writing_about.md) - I don't use trigger warnings when writing to myself ## [Link to page 1 whose target audience is friends](./about_me_personal.md) --- ### Current work log - [Current work log](./main/current_work_log.md) --- ## Index ### 2026-10 - live documents - [**Hobby wishlist 2026-10**](./main/hobby_wishlist_2026_10.md) - important - dating - [I am again angry](./main/I_am_again_angry.md) - maybe important - scrape hinge? - [**X: I scraped Bangalore Hinge. Y: Results are eye-opening**](./main/X_I_scraped_bangalore_hinge_Y_results_are_eye_opening.md) - important - lifestyle - [I am happy about joining swimming classes](./main/I_am_happy_about_joining_swimming_classes.md) - [X: Went swimming. Y: Loved it](./main/X_went_swimming_Y_loved_it.md) - work-adjacent - [Journalist Mark Halperin on cultivating sources](./main/journalist_mark_halperin_on_cultivating_sources.md) - uncategorised - [Had a dream of sharks as big as the worms in Dune, producing tsunami waves as big as in Interstellar](./main/had_a_dream_of_sharks_as_big_as_the_worms_in_dune_producing_tsunami_waves_as_big_as_in_interstellar.md) - [X: Rewatched Sherlock S4E3. Y: Confused why I care about thought experiments](./main/X_rewatched_sherlock_s4e3_Y_confused_why_I_care_about_thought_experiments.md) - [Aum Shinrikyo's achievements are quite impressive, especially when you compare it with how pseudoscientific their belief system was](./main/aum_shinrikyos_achievements_are_quite_impressive_especially_when_you_compare_it_with_how_pseudoscientific_their_belief_system_was.md) - [Chung Ling Soo is insane](./main/chung_ling_soo_is_insane.md) - [Fall of Constantinople is cool](./main/fall_of_constantinople_is_cool.md) - [Maybe Steve Jobs did not respect the retards mediocrity either](./main/maybe_steve_jobs_did_not_respect_the_retards_mediocrity_either.md) - [Actually physically laughed out loud to the tweets about imagemagick CVE](./main/actually_physically_laughed_out_loud_to_the_tweets_about_imagemagick_cve.md) - [You have friends who don't have long-term life goals and won't make it to the history books. You can still like them or otherwise feel apathy for them, which is a step better than passionate enduring hatred](./main/you_have_friends_who_dont_have_longterm_goals_and_wont_make_it_to_the_history_books_you_can_still_like_them_or_otherwise_feel_apathy_for_them_which_is_a_step_better_than_passionate_enduring_hatred.md) - [I wish I could play old Tatasky games](./main/I_wish_I_could_play_old_tatasky_games.md) - [Found a new food shop](./main/found_a_new_food_shop.md) - [**List of things that make me more resentful versus less**](./main/list_of_things_that_make_me_more_resentful_versus_less.md) - important - [You can use a ceiling fan to dry your hands](./main/you_can_use_a_ceiling_fan_to_dry_your_hands.md) - [I sometimes wish I had suffered even more in my childhood](./main/I_sometimes_wish_I_had_suffered_even_more_in_my_childhood.md) - [Nightmare of someone in my group being tortured](./main/nightmare_of_someone_in_my_group_being_tortured.md) - [Will the grief ever end?](./main/will_the_grief_ever_end.md) - [Operation Roll Over and Die](./main/operation_roll_over_and_die.md) - [X: Spent time with people. Y: More angry. Many of my disagreements with people IRL revolve around my valuing Power more than Community or Freedom or Harmony. Maybe you should write more about this](./main/X_spent_time_with_people_Y_more_angry_many_of_my_disagreements_with_people_irl_revolve_around_my_valuing_power_more_than_community_or_freedom_or_harmony_maybe_you_should_write_more_about_this.md) - [Do not have discussions on ASI risk. You are too angry to have them, also you don't know how to dissolve cruxes](./main/do_not_have_discussions_on_asi_risk_you_are_too_angry_to_have_them_also_you_dont_know_how_to_dissolve_cruxes.md) - [Genghis Khan succeeded at his goal of making it to the history books](./main/genghis_khan_succeeded_at_his_goal_of_making_it_to_the_history_books.md) - [**X: I have set a daily alarm to remind myself to not start extended discussions with people, as this is the biggest source of suffering in my life**](./main/X_I_have_set_a_daily_alarm_to_remind_myself_to_not_start_extended_discussions_with_people_as_this_is_the_biggest_source_of_suffering_in_my_life.md) - important - [Had a dream of climbing a 10-storey artificial rock climbing wall without a safety harness](./main/had_a_dream_of_climbing_a_10_storey_artificial_rock_climbing_wall_without_a_safety_harness.md) - [Fantasising about success](./main/fantasising_about_success.md) - [I understand Red because I used to be more Red, and I understand White even if I dislike it, but Green is completely alien to me](./main/I_understand_red_because_I_used_to_be_more_red_and_I_understand_white_even_if_I_dislike_it_but_green_is_completely_alien_to_me.md) - [Teacher's day and annual day preparations](./main/teachers_day_and_annual_day_preparations.md) - [Nepali vlogs are fun](./main/nepali_vlogs_are_fun.md) - [Why do women engage in cutting more often than men?](./main/why_do_women_engage_in_cutting_more_often_than_men.md) - [X: [Private] Y: Focus is jarring to people who waste their time reading unimportant things, i.e., things that don't actually change their life decisions. Lack of social proof is jarring to people who lack courage to defy social consensus themselves](./main/X_private_Y_focus_is_jarring_to_people_who_waste_their_time_reading_unimportant_things_ie_things_that_dont_actually_change_their_life_decisions_lack_of_social_proof_is_jarring_to_people_who_lack_courage_to_defy_social_consensus_themselves.md) ### 2026-09 - live documents - [**Hobby wishlist 2026-09**](./main/hobby_wishlist_2026_09.md) - important - uncategorised - [I love "locked out of heaven" by bruno mars](./main/I_love_locked_out_of_heaven_by_bruno_mars.md) - [Credit belongs to the man in the arena, not the one watching from the sidelines with a morality-shaped stick up their ass](./main/credits_belongs_to_the_man_in_the_arena_not_the_one_watching_from_the_sidelines_with_a_morality_shaped_stick_up_their_ass.md) - [Mainstream society is traumatising](./main/mainstream_society_is_traumatising.md) - [You have not exercised in 3 days and you have not worked in 2 days. This is the simplest explanation for why you are currently in a bad mood](./main/you_have_not_exercised_in_three_days_and_you_have_not_worked_in_two_days_this_is_the_simplest_explanation_for_why_you_are_currently_in_a_bad_mood.md) - [Everything causes me so much pain](./main/everything_causes_me_so_much_pain.md) - [Stick to XY rule. And go exercise](./main/stick_to_xy_rule_and_go_exercise.md) - [I respect Andean Medjedovic for the balls and ability to act solo with no social support](./main/I_respect_andean_medjedovic_for_the_balls_and_ability_to_act_solo_with_no_social_support.md) - [I want to cry. I am so deeply disappointed in people. Especially my friends](./main/I_want_to_cry_I_am_so_deeply_disappointed_in_people_especially_my_friends.md) - [If I was in a fistfight to the death, I would push them to the ground then pluck their eyes out](./main/if_I_was_in_a_fistfight_to_the_death_I_would_push_them_to_the_ground_then_pluck_their_eyes_out.md) - [In the end, there is only Power. Save yourself. Do not expect anyone to lift even a finger to help you](./main/in_the_end_there_is_only_power_save_yourself_do_not_expect_anyone_to_lift_even_a_finger_to_help_you.md) - [I want to write more about why Power is more important than Community](./main/I_want_to_write_more_about_why_power_is_more_important_than_community.md) - maybe important - [Ruthlessly deprioritise but never surrender, and never lie to yourself that surrender is a good thing](./main/ruthlessly_deprioritise_but_never_surrender_and_never_lie_to_yourself_that_surrender_is_a_good_thing.md) - [I am happy with how productive my week was](./main/I_am_happy_with_how_productive_my_week_was.md) - [Maybe think more about the Truth and the history books, and think less about the deaths of either you or your enemies](./main/maybe_think_more_about_the_truth_and_the_history_books_and_think_less_about_the_deaths_of_either_you_or_your_enemies.md) - maybe important - [Tie yourself to the mast but pick the right mast lol](./main/tie_yourself_to_the_mast_but_pick_the_right_mast_lol.md) - incorrect - [Go back to XY format. I just wish my brain would stop spinning. You don't have to write something here every fucking day](./main/go_back_to_xy_format_I_just_wish_my_brain_would_stop_spinning_you_dont_have_to_write_something_here_every_fucking_day.md) - [X: I read Cate Hall's book. Y: I am more miserable as a result](./main/X_I_read_cate_halls_book_Y_I_am_more_miserable_as_a_result.md) - [X: [Private] Y: Made me happy](./main/X_private_Y_made_me_happy.md) - [X: Swam at night in cold water. Y: Was fun](./main/X_swam_at_night_in_cold_water_Y_was_fun.md) - [The ultimate revenge you can get against someone is in the battleground of ideas](./main/the_ultimate_revenge_you_can_get_against_someone_is_in_the_battleground_of_ideas.md) - [Excited to meet a friend](./main/excited_to_meet_a_friend.md) - [I believe in the Enlightenment. My ultimate revenge against this world will be to eradicate all the false ideologies from it](./main/I_believe_in_the_enlightenment_my_ultimate_revenge_against_this_world_will_be_to_eradicate_all_the_false_ideologies_from_it.md) - [X: Met someone this week. Y: Received possibly useful advice](./main/X_met_someone_this_week_Y_received_possibly_useful_advice.md) - [I miss the version of myself that was capable of enjoying slow travel](./main/I_miss_the_version_of_myself_that_was_capable_of_enjoying_slow_travel.md) - [I would rather be in Kim Jong Un's shoes than my own](./main/I_would_rather_be_in_kim_jong_uns_shoes_than_my_own.md) - [Saw a dream with a friend](./main/saw_a_dream_with_a_friend.md) - [Frogboil people's boundaries](./main/frogboil_peoples_boundaries.md) - dating - [Reaction rant to Jacob Falcovich on resentment](./main/reaction_rant_to_jacob_falcovich_on_resentment.md) - [I love Cate Hall and Sasha Chapin's marriage](./main/I_love_cate_hall_and_sasha_chapins_marriage.md) - [X: Received more hinge advice from friend](./main/X_received_more_hinge_advice_from_friend.md) - [I want to find someone to love because I don't want to be 24x7 driven by fear and rage](./main/I_want_to_find_someone_to_love_because_I_dont_want_to_be_24x7_driven_by_fear_and_rage.md) - [Networking backlog for dating](./main/networking_backlog_for_dating.md) - [X: Gone back to a new authentic hinge profile](./main/X_gone_back_to_a_new_authentic_hinge_profile.md) - lifestyle - [X: Set a long hobby wishlist. Y: Burned a work day playing drums instead](./main/X_set_a_long_hobby_wishlist_Y_burned_a_work_day_playing_drums_instead.md) - [X: Almost finished Cult of the Lamb. Y: Stayed up late atleast once. Consider not doing this again](./main/X_almost_finished_cult_of_the_lamb_Y_stayed_up_late_atleast_once_consider_not_doing_this_again.md) - [X: I have a problem](./main/X_I_have_a_problem.md) - [You become the masks you wear. Or why I wanna leave music and dance both](./main/you_become_the_masks_you_wear_or_why_I_wanna_leave_music_and_dance_both.md) - [X: Attended event. Y: Not for me. Save your computation](./main/X_attended_event_Y_not_for_me_save_your_computation.md) - [Sports are the most useless hobby possible](./main/sports_are_the_most_useless_hobby_possible.md) - [Live log - Playing drums for Decode by Paramore](./main/live_log_playing_drums_for_decode_by_paramore.md) - important but ephemeral. document continued from 2026-08. - [X: I tried chess tournaments, drums for open mics, massage classes. Y: I loved them for the novelty but didn't find enough reward to commit](./main/X_I_tried_chess_tournaments_drums_for_open_mics_massage_classes_Y_I_loved_them_for_the_novelty_but_didnt_find_enough_reward_to_commit.md) - [Morse tree](./main/morse_tree.md) - [Can ham radio exam be cleared with just 10 days preparation?](./main/can_ham_radio_exam_be_cleared_with_just_10_days_preparation.md) - [**Many of the experiences I like seem to involve intense physical sensation**](./main/many_of_the_experiences_I_like_seem_to_involve_intense_physical_sensation.md) - important - [The place I currently live in is the only place I can call home. Maybe that is why I am so averse to shifting](./main/the_place_I_currently_live_in_is_the_only_place_I_can_call_home_maybe_that_is_why_I_am_so_averse_to_shifting.md) - maybe important - [**X: Stayed at a friend's place. Y: Pool and window were nice, friends were meh**](./main/X_stayed_at_a_friends_place_Y_pool_and_window_were_nice_friends_were_meh.md) - important - [X: Swam in 14 foot pool. Y: Good day](./main/X_swam_in_14_foot_pool_Y_good_day.md) - [X: Meditated after long. Y: Went average](./main/X_meditated_after_long_Y_went_average.md) ### 2026-08 - uncategorised - [Good day. Positive interpersonal interactions. Helps build momentum](./main/good_day_positive_interpersonal_interactions_helps_build_momentum.md) - [I'm happy today was productive](./main/Im_happy_today_was_productive.md) - [I think atleast 5% of men want to be rapists because my past self can relate to them](./main/I_think_atleast_5_percent_of_men_want_to_be_rapists_because_my_past_self_can_relate_to_them.md) - [Lmao. Tsunami in the middle of band playing](./main/lmao_tsunami_in_the_middle_of_band_playing.md) - [If you want to keep your bear soft toy, become permanent global dictator](./main/if_you_want_to_keep_your_bear_soft_toy_become_permanent_global_dictator.md) - maybe important for others (not me) to read - [The masculine urge to put your entire networth in Nvidia far OTM calls](./main/masculine_urge_to_put_your_entire_networth_in_nvidia_far_otm_calls.md) - [X: [Private.] Y: [Private.] Do not trust your emotions, atleast in the short-term](./main/X_private_Y_private_do_not_trust_your_emotions_atleast_in_the_short_term.md) - maybe important - [X: I tried dual N-back. Y: It can fill up your working memory](./main/X_I_tried_dual_N_back_N_2_Y_it_can_fill_up_your_working_memory.md) - [Even if I have to go personally bomb these people one day, I will do it with a smile on my face](./main/even_if_I_have_to_go_personally_bomb_these_people_one_day_I_will_do_it_with_a_smile_on_my_face.md) - [Do not let your hobbies lead you to forget the value of self-sacrifice](./main/do_not_let_your_hobbies_lead_you_to_forget_the_value_of_self_sacrifice.md) - [More grief](./main/more_grief.md) - [Exercise brings out my anger in a controlled way](./main/exercise_brings_out_my_anger_in_a_controlled_way.md) - [I believe in status hierarchies based on dominance, not prestige](./main/I_believe_in_status_hierarchies_based_on_dominance_not_prestige.md) - [Voices. Together but separate](./main/voices_together_but_separate.md) - [Keep memories of people](./main/keep_memories_of_people.md) - [X: Sick. Y: Mood below average](./main/X_sick_Y_mood_below_average.md) - [I love this thread on HN called "anger, anxiety, agency"](./main/I_love_this_thread_on_hn_called_anger_anxiety_agency.md) - [I should be more proud of myself for not having killed myself yet](./main/I_should_be_more_proud_of_myself_for_not_having_killed_myself_yet.md) - [X: Last few months of trying to process my emotions. Y: Everything I pay attention to seems to loop on itself](./main/X_last_few_months_of_trying_to_process_my_emotions_Y_everything_I_pay_attention_to_seems_to_loop_on_itself.md) - maybe important - [How to switch off brain?](./main/how_to_switch_off_brain.md) - [You know the plan now shut up and execute](./main/you_know_the_plan_now_shut_up_and_execute.md) - [My entire childhood has trained me not to care about people](./main/my_entire_childhood_has_trained_me_not_to_care_about_people.md) - [Learn to play at level two](./main/learn_to_play_at_level_two.md) - [Nietzsche goes hard - God is dead](./main/nietzsche_goes_hard_god_is_dead.md) - [**You need a better structure for page 3 notes**](./main/you_need_a_better_structure_for_page_3_notes.md) - important - [Religion is the ultimate panopticon. X: Made lots of notes. Y: Self-censored some religion-related notes](./main/religion_is_the_ultimate_panopticon_X_made_lots_of_notes_Y_self_censored_some_religion_related_notes.md) - lifestyle - [X: Experimenting with a chess alarm](./main/X_experimenting_with_a_chess_alarm.md) - [My travel wishlist](./main/my_travel_wishlist.md) - maybe important - [**Once a month, write down your net worth in your private notes**](./main/once_a_month_write_down_your_net_worth_in_your_private_notes.md) - important - [Investigate how to speed up building muscle memory and hand-eye coordination](./main/investigate_how_to_speed_up_building_muscle_memory_and_hand_eye_coordination.md) - maybe important - [Ham radio ASOC exam seems easy lol](./main/ham_radio_asoc_exam_seems_easy_lol.md) - [**Combat training for infantry takes 6 months and is not just about weapons safety and marksmanship**](./main/combat_training_for_infantry_takes_6_months_and_is_not_just_about_weapons_safety_and_marksmanship.md) - important - [X: Practising Decode by Paramore. Y: Holy shit that was fun](./main/X_practising_decode_by_paramore_Y_holy_shit_that_was_fun.md) - [X: Played a chess tournament. Y: Getting your ass kicked by 10 year olds is surprisingly fun](./main/X_played_a_chess_tournament_Y_getting_your_ass_kicked_by_10_year_olds_is_surprisingly_fun.md) - [X: Took two full days off for hobbies, enjoyed it. Y: Maybe do more of this?](./main/X_took_two_full_days_off_for_hobbies_enjoyed_it_Y_maybe_do_more_of_this.md) - lifestyle - Live documents - [**My hobby wishlist**](./main/my_hobby_wishlist.md) - important - [Live log - Playing drums for Decode by Paramore](./main/live_log_playing_drums_for_decode_by_paramore.md) - important but ephemeral - dating - [Which places in India are statistically likely to contain women who appreciate the types of value I offer?](./main/which_places_in_india_are_statistically_likely_to_contain_women_who_appreciate_the_types_of_value_I_offer.md) - [I want to feel chosen](./main/I_want_to_feel_chosen.md) - ["The Red Quest" might have surprisingly good advice](./main/the_red_quest_might_have_surprisingly_good_advice.md) - [Maybe I am capable of unconditional acceptance but not unconditional love](./main/maybe_I_am_capable_of_unconditional_acceptance_but_not_unconditional_love.md) - [I want to marry someone who will write letters to me when I am in prison](./main/I_want_to_marry_someone_who_will_write_letters_to_me_when_I_am_in_prison.md) - [Accept that you don't find most things fun. You can still lead a life worth living, and you can still find a partner](./main/accept_that_you_dont_find_most_things_fun_you_can_still_lead_a_life_worth_living_and_you_can_still_find_a_partner.md) - [**X: Consider making a 30 second video collage for your hinge profile**](./main/X_consider_making_a_30_second_video_collage_for_your_hinge_profile.md) - important - [On what dating metric are you the best at on planet Earth?](./main/on_what_dating_metric_are_you_the_best_at_on_planet_earth.md) - [Building long-term marriages and creating propaganda are the same skill](./main/building_longterm_marriages_and_creating_propaganda_are_the_same_skill.md) - physical health - [Optimal medication for simple stuff](./main/optimal_medication_for_simple_stuff.md) ### 2026-07 - uncategorised - [X: I played 100 games of bullet chess while angry, and Y: dropped 150 elo](./main/X_I_played_100_games_of_bullet_chess_while_angry_and_Y_dropped_150_elo.md) - [Mild weird sadness](./main/mild_weird_sadness.md) - [Maze algos suck, maybe write a better one](./main/maze_algos_suck_maybe_write_better_one.md) - [X: Woke up feeing unsafe. Y: Reminding myself I am safe helped](./main/X_woke_up_feeling_unsafe_Y_reminding_myself_I_am_safe_helped.md) - [Joke: @backblaze when can I order a copy of my data via ICBM. Update - maybe this is not a joke?](./main/joke_backblaze_when_can_I_order_a_copy_of_my_data_via_icbm.md) - [Everything you care about can be taken away from you. In the end, there is only Power](./main/everything_you_care_about_can_be_taken_away_from_you_in_the_end_there_is_only_power.md) - [The wartime equivalent of "learn to build, learn to sell" is cyberwar and psywar](./main/wartime_equivalent_of_learn_to_build_learn_to_sell_is_cyberwar_and_psywar.md) - [I am tired of living in a civilisation built on lies](./main/I_am_tired_of_living_in_a_civilisation_built_on_lies.md) - maybe important - [The only way you can fix your resentment of people is to meet people more](./main/the_only_way_you_can_fix_your_resentment_of_people_is_to_meet_people_more.md) - maybe important - [X: Stood with a poster "Free listening ear for your problems" at a popular public spot. Y: Task failed successfully](./main/X_stood_with_a_poster_free_listening_ear_for_your_problems_at_a_popular_public_spot_Y_task_failed_successfully.md) - [I could probably shoot everyone I have ever cared about, if I had to](./main/I_could_probably_shoot_everyone_I_have_ever_cared_about_if_I_had_to.md) - [X: I read IITD yearbook in deatil. Y: More motivated to go talk to more people](./main/X_I_read_iitd_yearbook_in_detail_Y_more_motivated_to_go_talk_to_more_people.md) - [X: Watched Odyssey. Y: Misc notes](./main/X_watched_odyssey_Y_misc_notes.md) - [Meme: If you gaze into the abyss, the abyss becomes clingy](./main/meme_if_you_gaze_into_the_abyss_the_abyss_becomes_clingy.md) - [Billie Eilish will die](./main/billie_eilish_will_die.md) - [I would rather kill myself than be you. But also I like some things about you](./main/I_would_rather_kill_myself_than_be_you_but_also_I_like_some_things_about_you.md) - [Pray to Zeus. Pray to Poseidon](./main/pray_to_zeus_pray_to_poseidon.md) - [The Intelligence Explosion will not be televised](./main/the_intelligence_explosion_will_not_be_televised.md) - [Had a dream of being imprisoned](./main/had_a_dream_of_being_imprisoned.md) - [I believe in the power of incredible amounts of violence](./main/I_believe_in_the_power_of_incredible_amounts_of_violence.md) - maybe important - [I wanna be an assassin, I don't wanna write code. Ugh](./main/I_wanna_be_an_assassin_I_dont_wanna_write_code_ugh.md) - [Neuroscience is the granddaddy of psychology. Hack neuroscience in order to hack psychology and politics](./main/neuroscience_is_the_granddaddy_of_psychology_hack_neuroscience_in_order_to_hack_psychology_and_politics.md) - maybe important idk - [You want vengeance on the timescale of years, not weeks](./main/you_want_vengeance_on_the_timescale_of_years_not_weeks.md) - [Maybe N-back task is useful for persuasion](./main/maybe_N_back_task_is_useful_for_persuasion.md) - [r/hellenism is fun lol](./main/r_hellenism_is_fun_lol.md) - [ADD having no overflow protection is hillarious](./main/add_having_no_overflow_protection_is_hillarious.md) - [**Think about the next week or the next century, don't think of anything in between**](./main/think_about_the_next_week_or_the_next_century_dont_think_of_anything_in_between.md) - important - [Like a kite dancing in a hurricane](./main/like_a_kite_dancing_in_a_hurricane.md) - [Waking up is beautiful](./main/waking_up_is_beautiful.md) - dating - [Do not take seriously the dating advice of religious people](./main/do_not_take_seriously_the_dating_advice_of_religious_people.md) - [Liked an interaction with a girl on the plane. Also some notes on safety](./main/liked_an_interaction_with_a_girl_on_the_plane_also_some_notes_on_safety.md) - [Motivation to keep swiping - if this doesn't work, you might have to be more dishonest](./main/motivation_to_keep_swiping_if_this_doesnt_work_you_might_have_to_be_more_dishonest.md) - incorrect - [I changed my profile after all](./main/I_changed_my_profile_after_all.md) - [Lmao at this dating profile photo optimisation guide](./main/lmao_at_this_dating_profile_photo_optimisation_guide.md) - [Don't sleep deprive yourself, go to sleep](./main/dont_sleep_deprive_yourself_go_to_sleep.md) - [**X: You are in contact with multiple women you have non-zero interest in. Y: You seem more optimistic about life as a result**](./main/X_you_are_in_contact_with_multiple_women_you_have_nonzero_interest_in_Y_you_seem_more_optimistic_about_life_as_a_result.md) - important - [X: You sent many prompts. Y: Last 5 matches did not appreciate "specific non-sexual compliment"](./main/X_you_sent_many_prompts_Y_last_5_matches_did_not_appreciate_specific_non_sexual_compliment.md) - lifestyle - [Is this the room I want to die in?](./main/is_this_the_room_I_want_to_die_in.md) - [**I precommit to visiting a shooting range in Bangkok (or other city with lax regulations) in 2026**](./main/I_precommit_to_visiting_a_shooting_range_in_bangkok_or_other_city_with_lax_regulations_in_2026.md) - important - [Stayed up late yesterday watching the movie. Woke up late today and was unproductive. Pepe sad](./main/stayed_up_late_yesterday_watching_the_movie_woke_up_late_today_and_was_unproductive_pepe_sad.md) - [I like my room lol. I am mildly upset at all the negative comments I have received about it](./main/I_like_my_room_lol_I_am_mildly_upset_at_all_the_negative_comments_I_have_received_about_it.md) ### 2026-06 - uncategorised - note - this list is not sorted by date - [Combine your alphas](./main/combine_your_alphas.md) - [Create an egregore to shift a technological offence-defence balance](./main/create_an_egregore_to_shift_a_technological_offence_defence_balance.md) - ["Just help everyone you meet" is good networking advice but maybe bad civilisation-building advice](./main/just_help_everyone_you_meet_is_good_networking_advice_but_maybe_bad_civilisation_building_advice.md) - [I don't feel averse to looking at twitter](./main/I_dont_feel_averse_to_looking_at_twitter.md) - [**I need clear risk opt-ins for people around me**](./main/I_need_clear_risk_optins_for_people_around_me.md) - Important - [Do I need an ingroup to feel safe?](./main/do_I_need_an_ingroup_to_feel_safe.md) - [Side project to delegate to codex later, maybe never - Improve the UX of cypherpunks mailing list - good for maintaining motivation](./main/side_project_to_delegate_to_codex_later_maybe_never_improve_the_ux_of_cypherpunks_mailing_list_good_for_maintaining_my_motivation.md) - [You can joke about violence too, actually](./main/you_can_joke_about_violence_too_actually.md) - [Your inaction is going to get me killed, and if you understand how important this is to me, we can still agree to disagree](./main/your_inaction_is_going_to_get_me_killed_and_if_you_understand_how_important_this_is_to_me_we_can_still_agree_to_disagree.md) - [**Me having fun might scare my enemies more, actually**](./main/me_having_fun_might_scare_my_enemies_more_actually.md) - important - [The Gates to Hades are the terrace of my building - part 2](./main/the_gates_to_hades_are_the_terrace_of_my_building_part_two.md) - [Laughed so much it hurt, at this comment on supply chain attacks](./main/laughed_so_much_it_hurt_at_this_comment_on_supply_chain_attacks.md) - ["My time is constrained" and "I am underconfident in my ability to manage social interactions well"](./main/my_time_is_constrained_and_I_am_underconfident_in_my_ability_to_manage_social_interactions_well.md) - [I liked an event I attended today](./main/I_liked_an_event_I_attended_today.md) - [Looking at my happy notes made me happy](./main/looking_at_my_happy_notes_made_me_happy.md) - [Titanic is one of the most beautiful movies ever](./main/titanic_is_one_of_the_most_beautiful_movies_ever.md) - [I am fucking excited lol. Also, networking is hits-based, not rules-based](./main/I_am_fucking_excited_lol_also_networking_is_hits_based_not_rules_based.md) - [Networking is easy if you're a kissass](./main/networking_is_easy_if_youre_a_kissass.md) - [I'm an Agent of Chaos vortexing Reality under my own gravity](./main/Im_an_agent_of_chaos_vortexing_reality_under_my_own_gravity.md) - [I need very few people to like me](./main/I_need_very_few_people_to_like_me.md) - [Have I been conditioned by childhood to not have fun?](./main/have_I_been_conditioned_by_childhood_to_not_have_fun.md) - ["Fight like a demon" quotes found by AI](./main/fight_like_a_demon_quotes_found_by_ai.md) - [I miss some people from college](./main/I_miss_some_people_from_college.md) - [I like Pingu cartoon from childhood](./main/I_like_pingu_cartoon_from_childhood.md) - [Listening to women's problems makes me feel alive](./main/listening_to_womens_problems_makes_me_feel_alive.md) - [Which conversations do I actually seem to enjoy?](./main/which_conversations_do_I_actually_seem_to_enjoy.md) - [I am sad I can't slow travel more](./main/I_am_sad_I_cant_slow_travel_more.md) - [An interaction I had was very painful](./main/an_interaction_I_had_was_very_painful.md) - [You have hit diminishing returns from theory](./main/you_have_hit_diminishing_returns_from_theory.md) - maybe important - [One way of running a forum is to restrict the types of utterances that are allowed](./main/one_way_of_running_a_forum_is_to_restrict_the_types_of_utterances_that_are_allowed.md) - [Decathexis](./main/decathexis.md) - [Don't lose momentum of meeting people. Don't fall back into solo introspection loop](./main/dont_lose_momentum_of_meeting_people_dont_fall_back_into_solo_introspection_loop.md) - [X: I met a friend. Y: I got convinced I don't enjoy social interaction much](./main/X_I_met_a_friend_Y_I_got_convinced_I_dont_enjoy_social_interaction_much.md) - [Operation Nifty Package is funny](./main/operation_nifty_package_is_funny.md) - [Maybe organise a dollar auction or similar](./main/maybe_organise_a_dollar_auction_or_similar.md) - [X: I attended a hobby. Y: I seem more curious about people again, atleast a little bit](./main/X_I_attended_a_hobby_Y_I_seem_more_curious_about_people_again_atleast_a_little_bit.md) - [X: Attended one week full of meetings with friends. Y: It was meh but I should do this anyway](./main/X_attended_one_week_full_of_meetings_with_friends_Y_it_was_meh_but_I_should_do_this_anyway.md) - [X: Attended a social event. Y: Medium importance, all notes private](./main/X_attended_a_social_event_Y_medium_importance_all_notes_private.md) - [Depths of despair memes](./main/depths_of_despair_memes.md) - dating - [Lol maybe I should make two hinge profiles](./main/lol_maybe_I_should_make_two_hinge_profiles.md) - do not - [Dating has bad feedback loops and is personalised](./main/dating_has_bad_feedback_loops_and_is_personalised.md) - [I like cute but intelligent women](./main/I_like_cute_but_intelligent_women.md) - [I should probably compile a dating master post at some point](./main/I_should_probably_compile_a_dating_master_post_at_some_point.md) - [Dating, and my outlier traits](./main/dating_and_my_outlier_traits.md) - [**Dating master post compiled using AI**](./main/dating_master_post_compiled_using_ai.md) - maybe important, if only as a natural end to this topic - [I just realised something important about all the women I've gotten attached to, in the past](./main/I_just_realised_something_important_about_all_the_women_Ive_gotten_attached_to_in_the_past.md) - [Deadline to switch Hinge profile is 2026-08-31](./main/deadline_to_switch_hinge_profile_is_20260831.md) - [Mind sims based on past experience are far more accurate than mind sims without](./main/mind_sims_based_on_past_experience_are_far_more_accurate_than_mind_sims_without.md) - [I hope the girl with the Victorian flower language prompt matches with me](./main/I_hope_the_girl_with_victorian_flower_language_prompt_matches_with_me.md) - lifestyle - [Maybe I should have started lifting weights sooner](./main/maybe_I_should_have_started_lifting_weights_sooner.md) - [**Consider meeting people atleast two days a week**](./main/consider_meeting_people_atleast_two_days_a_week.md) - maybe important - [Report "I did X, response was Y"](./main/report_I_did_x_response_was_y.md) - maybe important - [Sleep with your clothes on](./main/sleep_with_your_clothes_on.md) ### 2026-05 - politically sensitive - [Have I made a terrible mistake by assuming I should stay back in India?](./main/have_I_made_a_terrible_mistake_by_assuming_I_should_stay_back_in_india.md) - uncategorised - [The Gates of Hades are the terrace of my building](./main/the_gates_of_hades_are_the_terrace_of_my_building.md) - [Some towns people are beautiful](./main/some_towns_people_are_beautiful.md) - [The terror of being wrong, and gambling your self-esteem](./main/the_terror_of_being_wrong_and_gambling_your_self_esteem.md) - [Dance class, how to sync private and public notes](./main/dance_class_how_to_sync_private_and_public_notes.md) - [Recent cute things in my life](./main/recent_cute_things_in_my_life.md) - [**There will be no forgiveness**](./main/there_will_be_no_forgiveness.md) - important - [Solve 100 lion 100 zebra problem](./main/solve_100_lion_100_zebra_problem.md) - [On forgiving people who haven't asked for your apology](./main/on_forgiving_people_who_havent_asked_for_your_apology.md) - [Competence ceilings are very high](./main/competence_ceilings_are_very_high.md) - [Visakanv says humour is about a balanced amount of meaning?](./main/visakanv_says_humour_is_about_a_balanced_amount_of_meaning.md) - [I don't feel safe around people who aren't capable of violence](./main/I_dont_feel_safe_around_people_who_arent_capable_of_violence.md) - [Don't mistake social malaise for guilt, and where are the curious violent people?](./main/dont_mistake_social_malaise_for_guilt_and_where_are_the_curious_violent_people.md) - ["In a utopia, I care about X. In the real world, I throw X under the bus."](./main/in_a_utopia_I_care_about_x_in_the_real_world_I_throw_x_under_the_bus.md) - [Why is my mind addicted to inventing new persuasion strategies?](./main/why_is_my_mind_addicted_to_inventing_new_persuasion_strategies.md) - [My anger is extremely normie, my violence is maybe not](./main/my_anger_is_extremely_normie_my_violence_is_maybe_not.md) - [Love, death and robots](./main/love_death_and_robots.md) - maybe important idk - [Worshipping a different God](./main/worshipping_a_different_god.md) - [The baseline strategy is always door-to-door persuasion](./main/baseline_strategy_is_always_door_to_door_persuasion.md) - interpersonal - [Isolation, and curiosity about people](./main/isolation_and_curiosity_about_people.md) - [I need a scheduled block of time to run dating surveys](./main/I_need_a_scheduled_block_of_time_to_run_dating_surveys.md) - [**Why do I even want a relationship, besides having sex?**](./main/why_do_I_even_want_a_relationship_besides_having_sex.md) - important, especially the last section - [I don't hate women, I hate society](./main/I_dont_hate_women_I_hate_society.md) - [**Made list of meetups of people with life missions**](./main/made_list_of_meetups_of_people_with_life_missions.md) - important - [I am fairly high on protectiveness, for a potential partner](./main/I_am_fairly_high_on_protectiveness_for_a_potential_partner.md) - [Wait, I am actually jealous of some people I know](./main/wait_I_am_actually_jealous_of_some_people_I_know.md) - [Women's stated dating preferences are so dumb](./main/womens_stated_dating_preferences_are_so_dumb.md) - [I understand truths about human nature that I don't know how to transmit](./main/I_understand_truths_about_human_nature_that_I_dont_know_how_to_transmit.md) - [Maybe the solution to dating across political differences is to meet less often](./main/maybe_the_solution_to_dating_across_political_differences_is_to_meet_less_often.md) - might be important idk - [Dating and political extremes, and I am willing to die over ASI risk](./main/dating_and_political_extremes_and_I_am_willing_to_die_over_asi_risk.md) - ["Safe tech progress" is more timeless than ASI risk](./main/safe_tech_progress_is_more_timeless_than_asi_risk.md) - [Maybe I am better at dating people who are more present-focussed, and dating epsilon-shifted clones](./main/maybe_I_am_better_at_dating_people_who_are_more_present_focussed.md) - [What does female-coded ambition look like?](./main/what_does_female_coded_ambition_look_like.md) - [Isolating myself increases neuroticism which degrades my thinking](./main/isolating_myself_increases_neuroticism_which_degrades_my_thinking.md) - might be important idk - ["Actually agree" versus "agree to disagree yet accept" versus "do not accept"](./main/actually_agree_versus_agree_to_disagree_yet_accept_versus_do_not_accept.md) - might be important idk. considering categorising people as type-1 versus type-2 versus type-3 - [Always talk to someone before making an important decision?](./main/always_talk_to_someone_before_making_an_important_decision.md) - lifestyle - [My room sucks](./main/my_room_sucks.md) - [I still haven't fully fixed sunlight or exercise](./main/I_still_havent_fully_fixed_sunlight_or_exercise.md) ### 2026-04, russia trip - interpersonal - [**I will not be meeting my friends for the next three months**](./main/I_will_not_be_meeting_my_friends_for_the_next_three_months.md) - [I am optimistic about technology and cynical about human nature](./main/I_am_optimistic_about_technology_and_cynical_about_human_nature.md) - [Marriage and shared preference orders](./main/marriage_and_shared_preference_orders.md) - [Bridge between worlds of violent and non-violent people](./main/bridge_between_worlds_of_violent_and_nonviolent_people.md) - [I am dreading going back to India because I am bored of people there](./main/I_am_dreading_going_back_to_india_because_I_am_bored_of_people_there.md) - [I am not fun or high status](./main/I_am_not_fun_or_high_status.md) - [Why am I so mad at the world?](./main/why_am_I_so_mad_at_the_world.md) - lifestyle - [Miscellaneous notes from visiting beach](./main/miscellaneous_notes_from_visiting_beach.md) - [Maybe my ideal place to live should have a beach or a mountain](./main/maybe_my_ideal_place_to_live_should_have_beach_or_mountain.md) ### 2026-02/03 - Most important - [**Learnings from past month of reading about politics**](./main/learnings_from_past_month_of_reading_about_politics.md) - [**Stay with a sober roommate**](./main/stay_with_a_sober_roommate.md) - [**I want to become more violent with time**](./main/I_want_to_become_more_violent_with_time.md) - Lifestyle - [Fucking hate coworking spaces](./main/fucking_hate_coworking_spaces.md) - [Light](./main/light.md) - [Heavy exercise](./main/heavy_exercise.md) - [Spend less time on Nitter](./main/spend_less_time_on_nitter.md) - Uncategorised - [Posts written to friends versus to myself](./main/posts_written_to_friends_versus_to_myself.md) - [Why do humans have sex in private?](./main/why_do_humans_have_sex_in_private.md) - [I am happy today](./main/I_am_happy_today.md) - [Withholding sex might not be an effective persuasion strategy](./main/withholding_sex_might_not_be_an_effective_persuasion_strategy.md) - [Morality of persuading vulnerable people](./main/morality_of_persuading_vulnerable_people.md) - [Principles should be symmetric](./main/principles_should_be_symmetric.md) - [People with moral convictions don't regret political violence](./main/people_with_moral_convictions_dont_regret_political_violence.md) - [I pray to the God of error correction](./main/I_pray_to_the_god_of_error_correction.md) - [What kind of retarded fucking civilisation have I been born into?](./main/what_kind_of_retarded_fucking_civilisation_have_I_been_born_into.md) - [Mount Everest will be destroyed (?)](./main/mount_everest_will_be_destroyed.md) - [The core of my morality around ASI risk is very simple](./main/core_of_my_morality_around_asi_risk_is_very_simple.md) - [I seem to process everything first intellectually then emotionally](./main/I_seem_to_process_everything_first_intellectually_then_emotionally.md) - [Prestige among the ingroup, dominance on the outgroup](./main/prestige_among_the_ingroup_dominance_on_the_outgroup.md) - [The only plan more ambitious than mine, that I believe in](./main/the_only_plan_more_ambitious_than_mine_that_I_believe_in.md) - [I am surprisingly immune to murder footage](./main/I_am_surprisingly_immune_to_murder_footage.md) - [I have wasted a year of my life arguing on the internet](./main/I_have_wasted_a_year_of_my_life_arguing_on_the_internet.md) - [There will be trials](./main/there_will_be_trials.md) - [Maybe I am not the type of person to shame others?](./main/maybe_I_am_not_the_type_of_person_to_shame_others.md) - [Naval Ravikant on political transparency](./main/naval_ravikant_on_political_transparency.md) - [Thoughts on Carlson Bukele interview](./main/thoughts_on_carlson_bukele_interview.md) - [Levels of belief in democracy](./main/levels_of_belief_in_democracy.md) - [Receiving help to build anti-ASI movement](./main/receiving_help_to_build_anti_asi_movement.md) - [Unprincipled stances lead to reverse polarisation](./main/unprincipled_stances_lead_to_reverse_polarisation.md) - [Why world government?](./main/why_world_government.md) - [Multiple conflicting beliefs about privacy/transparency I hold at the same time](./main/multiple_conflicting_beliefs_about_privacy_transparency_I_hold_at_the_same_time.md) - [Moral lines should never be drawn along class lines. This is a sacred value for me](./main/moral_lines_should_never_be_drawn_along_class_lines_this_is_a_sacred_value_for_me.md) - [Consensual transparency versus non-consensual transparency](./main/consensual_transparency_versus_nonconsensual_transparency.md) - [My specific act of violence won't be necessary in a better world](./main/my_specific_act_of_violence_wont_be_necessary_in_a_better_world.md) - [Is this moral and is this effective?](./main/is_this_moral_and_is_this_effective.md) - [If I was making art to doompill people, here is how I would do it](./main/if_I_was_making_art_to_doompill_people_here_is_how_I_would_do_it.md) - [Why are youtube growth curves exponential not superexponential?](./main/why_are_youtube_growth_curves_exponential_not_superexponential.md) - [A fundamental problem of internet-driven geopolitics](./main/a_fundamental_problem_of_internet_driven_geopolitics.md) - [Losers fighting Losers](./main/losers_fighting_losers.md) - [I hate nearly everyone who wants to organise protests](./main/I_hate_nearly_everyone_who_wants_to_organise_protests.md) - [Working on ASI risk feels like an obligation, working on a world with zero privacy feels like curiosity](./main/working_on_asi_risk_feels_like_an_obligation_working_on_a_world_with_zero_privacy_feels_like_curiosity.md) - [I love transparency, not privacy](./main/I_love_transparency_not_privacy.md) - [I have been confused about morality for many years](./main/I_have_been_confused_about_morality_for_many_years.md) - [I think I like talking to people with access to social dark matter](./main/I_think_I_like_talking_to_people_with_access_to_social_dark_matter.md) - [I hate bad parenting and schooling](./main/I_hate_bad_parenting_and_schooling.md) - [Maybe timeless morality is not possible](./main/maybe_timeless_morality_is_not_possible.md) - [I want to surround myself with people who are transparent in public](./main/I_want_to_surround_myself_with_people_who_are_transparent_in_public.md) - [Redaction policies are boring](./main/redaction_policies_are_boring.md) - [How much of curiosity is status-seeking?](./main/how_much_of_curiosity_is_status_seeking.md) - [Universe death clock](./main/universe_death_clock.md) - [Every ideology is retarded ... makes simplifying assumptions about human nature](./main/every_ideology_makes_simplifying_assumptions_about_human_nature.md) - [This will never get better on its own](./main/this_will_never_get_better_on_its_own.md) - [Should I type cold messages slowly?](./main/should_I_type_cold_messages_slowly.md) - [Make art?](./main/make_art.md) - [Skyscrapers, is that it?](./main/skyscrapers_is_that_it.md) - [Email everyone](./main/email_everyone.md) - [Adversarial communication norms](./main/adversarial_communication_norms.md) - [Would I kill my friend if they plan to kill me first out of ignorance?](./main/would_I_kill_my_friend_if_they_plan_to_kill_me_first_out_of_ignorance.md) - [My values seem to be honesty and violence](./main/my_values_seem_to_be_honesty_and_violence.md) - [Optimal moral strategy is to think you are altruistic](./main/optimal_moral_strategy_is_to_think_you_are_altruistic.md) - [Should I make a failed assassination attempt?](./main/should_I_make_a_failed_assassination_attempt.md) - [Yet another dump of confusion around my morality](./main/yet_another_dump_of_confusion_around_my_morality.md) - [Dominance over the outgroup, prestige within the ingroup?](./main/dominance_over_the_outgroup_prestige_within_the_ingroup.md) - [Never say "impossible", always say "my current guess is this is bad ROI on my time"](./main/never_say_impossible_always_say_my_current_guess_is_this_is_bad_ROI_on_my_time.md) - [How does thinking about my morality cash out into real world actions as of 2026-03-05](./main/how_does_thinking_about_my_morality.md) - [Outputs are not root causes](./main/outputs_are_not_root_causes.md) - [Is my interest in fixing ASI risk out of self-interest or altruism?](./main/is_my_interest_in_fixing_asi_risk_out_of_self_interest_or_altruism.md) - [Productive versus unproductive nerd snipes](./main/productive_versus_unproductive_nerd_snipes.md) - [I want to see more violence and bloodshed](./main/I_want_to_see_more_violence_and_bloodshed.md) - [Psychological warfare and ASI risk](./main/psychological_warfare_and_asi_risk.md) - [Grim resolve, and art](./main/grim_resolve_and_art.md) - [Preparing for war before the world knows it is necessary](./main/preparing_for_war_before_the_world_knows_it_is_necessary.md) - [Self-fulfilling prophecies only work on brainless people](./main/self_fulfilling_prophecies_only_work_on_brainless_people.md) - [Morality as identity, and why I want to lower my morals on purpose](./main/morality_as_identity.md) - [gpt-5 Kapil Gupta advice (copy-pasted)](./main/gpt5_kapil_gupta_advice_copy_pasted.md) - [All my problems summarised yet again, in simple words](./main/all_my_problems_summarised_yet_again_in_simple_words.md) - [Unhappiness since 2023](./main/unhappiness_since_2023.md) - [On judging people, general version](./main/on_judging_people_general_version.md) - [I am violent because you are retarded](./main/I_am_violent_because_you_are_retarded.md) - [My comment on Alexey Guzey's post](./main/my_comment_on_alexey_guzeys_post.md) - [I don't think I am being paranoid](./main/I_dont_think_I_am_being_paranoid.md) - [Maybe I should pre-commit to killing atleast one person?](./main/maybe_I_should_precommit_to_killing_atleast_one_person.md) - [Particle colliders for human morality](./main/particle_colliders_for_human_morality.md) - [TLP seems to agree with some of my framings](./main/tlp_seems_to_agree_with_some_of_my_framings.md) - [Everything is so deeply entangled](./main/everything_is_so_deeply_entangled.md) - [Pre-conditional versus post-conditional love](./main/preconditional_versus_postconditional_love.md) - [I don't want to live in a dead world](./main/I_dont_want_to_live_in_a_dead_world.md) - [Systematic moral blinding](./main/systematic_moral_blinding.md) - Interpersonal - [All my college friends might die](./main/all_my_college_friends_might_die.md) - [Repression](./main/repression.md) - [**I don't trust my friends' judgement when it comes to romantic relationships**](./main/I_dont_trust_my_friends_judgement_when_it_comes_to_romantic_relationships.md) - important for me - [ASI xrisk and judging others](./main/asi_xrisk_and_judging_others.md) - [Reasons I don't have a girlfriend](./main/reasons_I_dont_have_a_girlfriend.md) - [I am sad I can't publish my travel notes](./main/I_am_sad_I_cant_publish_my_travel_notes.md) - [Dating and status games, more notes](./main/dating_and_status_games_more_notes.md) - [Median number of partners is lower in India](./main/median_number_of_partners_is_lower_in_india.md) - [Parenting](./main/parenting.md) - [Did Aaron Swartz commit suicide because of his girlfriend?](./main/did_aaron_swartz_commit_suicide_because_of_his_girlfriend.md) - [Do I even have spare atention for a partner, lol](./main/do_I_even_have_spare_attention_for_a_partner_lol.md) - [In-person beats online, for trust-building](./main/inperson_beats_online_for_trust_building.md) - [More ramblings on who I think I wanna date](./main/more_ramblings_on_who_I_think_I_wanna_date.md) - [Minimalism is a status game](./main/minimalism_is_a_status_game.md) - [I'm frustrated with women who regret the casual sex they have](./main/Im_frustrated_with_women_who_regret_the_casual_sex_they_have.md) - [I like Jacob Falcovich's blog on dating](./main/I_like_jacob_falcovichs_blog_on_dating.md) - [I don't think I am a good fit for most women](./main/I_dont_think_I_am_a_good_fit_for_most_women.md) - [Unconditional love feels better but makes you powerless](./main/unconditional_love_feels_better_but_makes_you_powerless.md) - [Being ignored doesn't mean being disliked](./main/being_ignored_doesnt_mean_being_disliked.md) - [I dislike dating as a status game](./main/I_dislike_dating_as_status_game.md) - [Why I am polyamorous](./main/why_I_am_polyamorous.md) - [What is love?](./main/what_is_love.md) - [Judging people with 10 lakh INR](./main/judging_people_with_10_lakh_inr.md) - [Useless people](./main/useless_people.md) - Self - [I am learning fast actually](./main/I_am_learning_fast_actually.md) - [My fear of AI is mostly selfish](./main/my_fear_of_ai_is_mostly_selfish.md) - [Timelock for substance use](./main/timelock_substance_use.md) - [Minimalism helps me think longterm](./main/minimalism_helps_me_think_longterm.md) - [Don't ask yourself "are you okay?" all the time](./main/dont_ask_yourself_are_you_okay_all_the_time.md) --- **Note to Self** - **Switch off your mind sims when you write here. Switch on your mind sims when writing professional posts aimed at other target audiences besides yourself. But this personal website is mostly aimed at yourself.** text_english/personal/main/000755 000765 000024 00000000000 15264336553 016767 5ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/about_me_personal.md000644 000765 000024 00000020640 15264147460 022062 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-10-14 # About me (Personal) - page 1 ## Disclaimer before you read my personal website - **target audience (page 1) - friends and potential friends.** I might not discuss stuff here with strangers. - See also: [I don't discuss my personal life with strangers](./main/I_dont_discuss_my_personal_life_with_strangers.md) - Page below is not aimed at a specific target audience, sorry about that. I am aware that different people I know are likely to be interested in different pieces of information, of what is given below. ## [Link to page 2 whose target audience is just myself](./about_me_personal_2.md) --- ### Project ideas for you - [Group chat for themed restaurants?](./main/group_chat_for_themed_restaurants.md) - [I wish someone created google maps for historical cities](./main/I_wish_someone_created_google_maps_for_historical_cities.md) - [General purpose windows](./main/general_purpose_windows.md) - [Experiment with cellphone triangulation](./main/experiment_with_cellphone_triangulation.md) ### Advice for you General - [Enemies are rare, most people don't care about you](./main/enemies_are_rare_most_people_dont_care_about_you.md) - [There is no infinitely safe space](./main/there_is_no_infinitely_safe_space.md) - [If you want more social interaction, maybe just organise events](./main/if_you_want_more_social_interaction_maybe_just_organise_events.md) - [Advice for tech nerds in India in their 20s](./main/advice_tech_nerds_india_20s.md) - [Miscellaneous advice not worth writing an entire post for](./main/miscellaneous_advice_not_worth_writing_an_entire_post_for.md) India-specific - [How to escape control of Indian parents](./main/how_to_escape_control_of_indian_parents.md) - [Minority groups in India should consider illegally stockpiling weapons](./main/minority_groups_in_india_should_consider_illegally_stockpiling_weapons.md) ### Do you want free money? - (Personal) **Get $600 (after 1 year), $3000 (after 5 years)** if you [help me find a long-term polyamorous girlfriend](./main/date_me.md) - (Personal) **Get $1000 (after 6 months)** if you [help me find a therapist or executive coach](./main/I_will_pay_you_if_you_find_me_a_therapist_or_coach.md) - (Personal) **Get $50** if [you know a good PG in Bangalore in 30k INR budget](./main/let_me_know_if_you_know_a_good_pg_in_30k_inr_budget.md) - I may or may not be putting active effort myself, to solve any of the above. Even if I am not trying to solve them myself, you are welcome to solve them for me. - I have increasingly observed that most tasks listed above are hard to delegate, even if I am willing to pay for them. Nevertheless, if you see low hanging fruit that I can't, feel free to complete the task and claim the payment. - I can also repay you with a favour, or with some days of my time, instead of paying you money. ### About myself - [Miscellaneous list of emotionally intense experiences of my life](./main/miscellanous_list_of_emotionally_intense_experiences_of_my_life.md) - [I regret donating to AMF](./main/I_regret_donating_to_amf.md) - [My childhood](./main/my_childhood.md) - [Languages I know](./main/languages_I_know.md) - [My tattoo](./main/my_tattoo.md) ### My hobbies - [Food I like](./main/food_I_like.md) - [Music I like](./main/music.md) - [Board games I like](./main/board_games_I_like.md) - [Swimming](./main/swimming.md) - [Dance](./main/dance.md) - [Ham radio](./main/ham_radio.md) - I have consumed a fair bit of media (fiction books, video games, movies, etc) in earlier stages of my life, but I'm busy nowadays so I am more selective. Scroll below for more on that. - [All physical skills / hobbies follow the same human anatomical principles](./main/all_physical_skills_hobbies_follow_the_same_human_anatomical_principles.md) ### Travel notes - [Russia travel notes](./main/russia_travel_notes.md) - [Nagaland cuisine](./main/nagaland_cuisine.md) - note to self - publish your 2024 travel notes here ### Dating - [Date me](./main/date_me.md) ### Interpersonal - [My role models](./main/my_role_models.md) - [People in my life who betrayed commitments with me](./main/people_in_my_life_who_betrayed_commitments_with_me.md) - [Conversation modes](./main/conversation_modes.md) ### About my mental health - [My plan to avoid suicide](./main/my_plan_to_avoid_suicide.md) - [Effectiveness of therapy on me personally](./main/therapy_effectiveness_personal.md) - [I will pay you if you find me a therapist or coach](./main/I_will_pay_you_if_you_find_me_a_therapist_or_coach.html) - [DSM-5 is broken](./main/dsm5_is_broken.md) ### Uncategorised - [Northeast indian women are fetishised because of parental control](./main/northeast_indian_women_are_fetishised_because_of_parental_control.md) - [Teach me about feminism](./main/teach_me_about_feminism.md) - [How much should I anonymise info about other people on my personal website?](./main/how_much_should_I_anonymise_info_about_other_people_on_my_personal_website.md) --- ### Repost of my writings from 2018-2019 (I was 17 years old so don't expect same level of quality obviously) blog - [First post](./main/my_blog_from_2018/first_post.md) - [An intro to theoretical computer science](./main/my_blog_from_2018/an_intro_to_theoretical_computer_science.md) - [Inception dynamics - fanfic](./main/my_blog_from_2018/inception_dynamics_fanfic.md) - [Books I've read](./main/my_blog_from_2018/books_Ive_read.md) - [Learn basics of programming in an hour](./main/my_blog_from_2018/learn_basics_of_programming_in_an_hour.md) - [Graham's number, anyone?](./main/my_blog_from_2018/grahams_number_anyone.md) - [An intro to theoretical computer science](./main/my_blog_from_2018/an_intro_to_theoretical_computer_science.md) - [Past and family](./main/my_blog_from_2018/past_and_family.md) - [Contact me](./main/my_blog_from_2018/contact_me.md) - [My interests](./main/my_blog_from_2018/my_interests.md) - [Interesting stuff I found online](./main/my_blog_from_2018/interesting_stuff_I_found_online.md) - [Entrepreneurship plans](./main/my_blog_from_2018/entrepreneurship_plans.md) - [My philosophy and opinions on stuff](./main/my_blog_from_2018/my_philosophy_and_opinions_on_stuff.md) - [PC games I've tried](./main/my_blog_from_2018/pc_games_Ive_tried.md) - [Movies and serials I've tried](./main/my_blog_from_2018/movies_and_serials_Ive_watched.md) - [Purpose of this blog](./main/my_blog_from_2018/purpose_of_this_blog.md) - [Busy beavers](./main/my_blog_from_2018/busy_beavers.md) - [Subterfuge strategia tournament](./main/my_blog_from_2018/subterfuge_strategia_tournament.md) book - [Incomplete JEE physics book from 2019](./main/incomplete_jee_physics_book_from_2019.md) --- ### Repost of some posts from my old stackexchange account from 2015-16 - [I finally understand how indian monsoon works](./main/I_finally_understand_how_indian_monsoon_works.md) - [Maybe a maximally stressful tennis match will make it easy to gain an advantage but hard to actually win](./main/maybe_a_maximally_stressful_tennis_match_will_make_it_easy_to_gain_an_advantage_but_hard_to_actually_win.md) --- ### NSFW posts on sex - **Read the disclaimer** before you read other posts here: [Disclaimer - Why do I write about my sex life online?](./main/why_do_I_write_about_my_sex_life_online.md) - [My relationship history](./main/my_relationship_history.md) - [I am straight](./main/I_am_straight.md) - [Genres of porn I like](./main/genres_of_porn_I_like.md) - [Why isn't same gender nudity more common?](./main/why_isnt_same_gender_nudity_more_common.md) - [I found most male sex toys kinda lame](./main/I_found_most_male_sex_toys_kinda_lame.md) ### About my physical health - (Honestly there's not much reason anyone but me will care about anything written here. I am just posting for completeness, as part of the experiment.) - [Spectacles](./main/spectacles.md) - [Dentist visit 2026-08-10](./main/health/dentist_visit_20260810.md) - [Blood test 2025-10-08](./main/health/blood_test_20251008.md) - [Blood test 2025-05-26](./main/health/blood_test_20250525.md) - [Blood test 2024-05-18](./main/health/blood_test_20240518.md) - [STD test 2024-05-17](./main/health/std_test_20240517.md) - [I had mild case of ichthyosis vulgaris](./main/health/I_had_mild_case_of_ichthyosis_vulgaris.md) --- **Note to Self** - **Switch off your mind sims when you write here. Switch on your mind sims when writing professional posts aimed at other target audiences besides yourself. But this personal website is mostly aimed at your friends.** text_english/personal/main/my_fear_of_ai_is_mostly_selfish.md000644 000765 000024 00000002122 15177753505 025707 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-08 ## Update - I now seem to think this post is completely incorrect. Ignore it. --- 2026-01-07 # My fear of AI is mostly selfish Disclaimer - Quick Note - Suppose I knew for a fact that a billion people were going to die, but I and my immediate circle were not going to be part of this set of people. A practical reason this could happen would be a nuclear war that the country I'm living in happens to not get involved in. - I would care about that, and I would probably work full-time to prevent it. I would probably be willing to take personal risks to prevent it, as I am doing now. But I don't think it would affect me as intensely and personally as ASI risk affects me. (It's hard for me to guess my emotional state in some hypothetical situation, but here's my weak guess.) - ASI risk affects me more because if human extinction happens, I too will die. If AI is used to create a permanent dictatorship, me and people around me and my future family will have to live in that dictatorship, with no hope that anything will ever get better even multiple generations in the future. text_english/personal/main/I_am_happy_about_joining_swimming_classes.md000644 000765 000024 00000001041 15261177513 027705 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-10-06 # I am happy about joining swimming classes! Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Satisfying constraints of not too far from where I live (hence less activation barrier), and timeslot matching my current schedule. - Swimming seems very form-dependent so I am glad I will be learning this. - I realised a month back itself I need to do some cardio too, not just strength training. I don't like running much, hence this. - Swimming is harder to replicate if you travel though, that is one downside. text_english/personal/main/how_to_switch_off_brain.md000644 000765 000024 00000002313 15244542104 024162 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-29 # How to switch off brain? Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I know all my next moves. - I know next move for work. (Load "curiosity about ethereum smart contracts" into working memory, and study the MIM exploit and other exploits based on bad floating point implementations - rounding error, precision loss, etc) - I know next moves for hobbies. (Listed in other post.) - I know next moves for dating. (Mostly just focus on hobbies planned, swipe more, continue exercising as usual. If this fails for some more weeks, then I already know I need to go get some video clips of hobbies and post them to the profile.) - **If you know all your next moves, why is your brain still endlessly spinning?** - I seem consistently focussed on some past problem or some future problem, 24x7, from the moment I wake up to the moment I sleep. If I am not actively engaged in some activity that is. Either it has to be actual work, or actually engaging hobby, or actually engaging conversation, otherwise your brain is constantly spinning. - From the age of 12 till the age of 25, your brain has been constantly spinning. Off button does not exist. - How to invent an off button? text_english/personal/main/I_changed_my_profile_after_all.md000644 000765 000024 00000001444 15225754266 025415 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-07-15 # I changed my profile after all Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Be more agentic. Move faster. - I changed my profile after all. - I free myself from my previous commitment to keep the old profile until 2026-08-31. My resentment of society is invariant to outcomes, which means there is actually no good reason to keep the old profile. I will just burn 1.5 months of my life on an experiment I know is probably going to fail, and this is quite costly. - Experimenting with another profile. Will document later on if I feel like, right now wanna actually do stuff while I am inspired to, instead of wasting my energy in documentation. Side Note - Liked [this post](https://geohot.github.io/blog/jekyll/update/2024/08/02/online-dating.html) by geohotztext_english/personal/main/X_set_a_long_hobby_wishlist_Y_burned_a_work_day_playing_drums_instead.md000644 000765 000024 00000001636 15245774722 035526 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-02 # X: Set a long hobby wishlist. Y: Burned a work day playing drums instead Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Long to do lists grate against my soul. - Ended up playing drums on what was supposed to be a work day, because I wanna delete this item off my to do list ASAP. - I can't say I regret it. Few months back I was suffering a lot more and didn't wanna do hobbies at all. Current stretch of life leaning a bit towards overdoing the hobbies. Might as well let myself do it and then report results. - I will probably eventually (in some months) have anyway finalised which hobbies I will keep doing and which ones I will drop. I am currently in experimentation phase. - (Part of me also shouting: ) Motherfucker you only have [redacted] years of financial runway left. Also keep that in mind. If everyone on earth dies, that is partially on your head too. - This is sad. personal/main/all_physical_skills_hobbies_follow_the_same_human_anatomical_principles.md000644 000765 000024 00000017776 15247020147 036021 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english2026-09-05 # All physical skills / hobbies follow the same human anatomical principles Disclaimer - personal - target audience - friends / potential friends - I am not an expert at most of these hobbies/skills and I have not thoroughly fact-checked the info. If someone else is reading this, take everything with grain of salt. - I am sure some people (who are actually good at these skills) find all this obvious. I didn't find it obvious until recently, and my guess is I am not alone in this. Common advice - Back straight. Bend knees if required to reach correct height. - Drums - Adjust stool height and drums heights to ensure this - Strength training - Standard advice across various exercises - Massage - Standard advice, especially because you want your body weight to transfer to the client - Salsa - Man should not bend towards the woman - Swimming - Honestly water makes the back straight by default. If you are deliberately stiffening your back, you might make it harder to float at all. - Driving - Hard seat ensures back straight by default. - Basketball - Bending knees is standard advice for many types of shots. - Elbow locked at 90 degree. Don't keep lifted arms if stuck in a position for extended time. - Drums - Elbows do roughly lock at 90 degrees. Adjust snare height if your left arm is being raised or stretched. - Strength training - I can't remember any exercise off the top of my head that locks elbows at 90. Either you flex the arms completely or the arms are not important. I guess plank locks elbows at 90. - Massage - Some moves do require making contact with client via lower arm, and locking elbow at roughly 90. - Salsa - Woman's elbows are supposed to lock at 90 before turns. - Swimming - Not relevant I think. Most swimming is done with straight arms and flat elbows. - Driving - I guess you should adjust your seat so that atleast upper arm is parallel to your back. - Basketball - Elbow locks at roughly 90 for some of the standard shots. One elbow locks completely. The other elbow flattens out during the shot to deliver power. Dribbling too is typically done with a locked elbow. - If elbow locked at an angle, movement should come from wrists (as opposed to fingers or lower arms). - Drums - Standard advice in drums, play from wrists - Strength training - Not relevant, most exercises lock the wrists - Massage - Wrists do tend to move along the curvature of the client's body, while other parts of your arm remain locked - Salsa - Wrists are used to signal turns, switch holds and so on - Swimming - idk swimming well enough to comment on what the correct form for wrists is, for swimming. But I think there is a correct form, and wrist movements do play a role. - Driving - Maybe a counterexample? Wheel movements are done using lower arm not wrists even though anatomically speaking this should hurt more here. AFAIK this is true of both regular cars and F1 cars. F1 car steering wheels require smaller wheel turns AFAIK so you don't lift the arms as much. (If correct, I am claiming regular car steering wheels are suboptimally designed !!!) - Basketball - Atleast some of the precision of shots comes from wrists, yes. However arm is also used to control how much power to deliver to the shot. Dribbling is again primarily done using wrists keeping the elbow locked at a specific height. - If delivering maximum power, deliver it from upper arm / shoulders only (as opposed to fingers, wrists, lower arms). Ensure elbows are flat. - Drums - Idk, I don't think you are ever supposed to deliver so much power to the drums, that elbows flat is required for good form. Elbows always stay bent when playing drums. - Strength training - I guess powerlifting counts here? Idk much about powerlifting form. But yeah typically you start with bent elbows and then flatten them to deliver maximum power. - Massage - Standard advice when delivering maximum power to client - Salsa - Same as drums, you don't ever deliver this much power during salsa - Swimming - Standard front stroke and back stroke are both done with flat elbows. - Driving - By default you don't deliver this much power via hands. Also idk, maybe driving is a genuinely counterexample. Fast turns are again done via lower arms. - Basketball - Same as with powerlifting, you deliver maximum force when your elbow goes from bent to flat. One elbow is locked during the shot while other delivers the power. Long-range shots like 3-pointer or half court shots are basically thrown with outstretched arms for maximum power. - Precise leg movements should come from the ankles only (as opposed to lifting/placing feet off the ground precisely, or using knees). Ankles are the equivalent for wrists, whenever precision without tiring out is required. - Drums - Self-explanatory, both pedals are driven by ankles - Strength training - Don't know enough about foot exercises to comment - Massage - Don't know enough about massages where force is delivered using feet as the contact point (as opposed to palms or upper arm) - Salsa - Foot placement does matter, this is possibly a counterexample. Although again, the precision and momentum of turns comes mostly from ankles again AFAIK (not sure). - Swimming - Ankle movements play important role in swimming. - Driving - Self-explanatory. Regular cars use three pedals driven by two feet. F1 cars use only two pedals since that is more efficient. - Basketball - I don't know enough about basketball to comment on ankle movements. - Corollary - Once you have practised for a year and reached intermediate level, then all the remaining expert-level skills require either a) training muscle memory of wrists and ankles for specific techniques, or b) brute force repetitive training to deliver more power (cardio, strength, endurance) - Drums - This is the only skill I am close to an expert at, and I can attest this is more-or-less true. Playing at high bpm, playing triplets or irregular time signatures, playing riffs etc, all of this basically boils down to precise wrist movements and more limb independence. All 4 of your limbs should be capable of learning 4 different patterns in muscle memory and autoplaying them. - Strength training - AFAIK there is no such thing as an expert at strength training. Schwarzenegger does the same exercises as you and me. He has just done the same thing brute force a lot more than most people (and maybe he has good genes or whatever). - Massage - I don't know what expert level in massage in, or if it even exists. There is no such a thing as world's best massage therapist AFAIK, whereas you can conceive of world's best drummer or powerlifter or marathoner or dancer or driver or swimmer or so on. - Salsa - Don't know enough about salsa to comment but my naive guess is that ankle movements are an important part of becoming an expert. Possibly limb independence is important, same as with drums. - Swimming - Don't know enough about swimming to comment but my naive guess again is that wrist and ankle movements are an important part of becoming an expert. I'm more unsure here though. I guess cardio is an important part for competitive swimming, just how much raw power your heart and lungs can deliver in a short span of time. And improving cardio requires the same sort of boring repetitive training as say, powerlifting does, there is no special technique to improving cardio AFAIK. - Driving - TIL F1 cars having a number of buttons to change relative torque delivery of the brake, accelerator, even their clutch is just buttons. Even the gear is controlled via buttons on the wheel. As in, all this is controlled by wrists (because this is more efficient than the controls on a regular car). - Basketball - Coordinationg between dribbling speed and direction (mostly controlled by wrists) and body movement (mostly controlled by ankles) is obviously important. Althogh again, don't know enough about basketball to offer a strong comment. Side Note - I wonder how much of this also applies to sex lmao. By default, I will assume all of it does. text_english/personal/main/I_am_violent_because_you_are_retarded.md000644 000765 000024 00000021143 15177753505 027006 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-14 # I am violent because you are retarded Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** - I am thinking aloud here. I don't yet know if I will endorse these claims after a lot of thought. ## Main - I think I should try explaining to a few non-technical people to their face, in real life, the following: - The reason I want to cyberattack the US govt and the AI companies and leak the secrets of everyone on Earth, including yours, and kill who knows how many tens of millions of people, is because you are too stupid to understand the problem any other way. And by stupid I don't mean low IQ, I mean you are stuck in an entire life strategy that ensures you cannot possibly actually understand and respond appropriately. - The people I seem to most like and respect happen to be the people inside the AI companies themselves, who are genocidal mass murderers and some of the most violent people to ever walk the face of this Earth. And the people I seem to genuinely truly dislike are you, the retarded non-violent public who cannot possibly understand anything. And that the actual reason some of the people at the AI companies are being this violent is that deep down they agree with me, that you, the public really are retarded, and there is no other option than to be this violent. They were not born this way. - There are enough people at these companies who are not naive and are aware of what they are doing. There are enough people fighting these companies who are also not naive and also aware of what they are doing. - It should in fact disturb you that both, the pro-ASI and the anti-ASI people are openly plotting this much violence against each other while treating you, the public, as chump change collateral damage. Some of the smartest people you know really do feel pushed to a point of this level of desperation. Before I engage in this much violence, I think you deserve an answer, at the very least, for why I am doing what I am about to do. I am not religious, but uh, "forgive me father for what I am about to do" - **This is an experiment I have to actually run in the real world I think.** - Will run it and maybe report some anonymised results. - EA/LW spaces seem increasingly retarded to me because most people there just write blogs and don't actually do stuff. (And from the few people who do in fact do stuff, I increasingly seem to get the vibe that they're working at Anthropic with full knowledge that Anthropic leadership is also preparing for mass murder.) Tech founder spaces seem increasingly retarded to me because everyone is following a bunch of heuristics that only make sense inside a capitalist non-ASI environment. Nobody is actually thinking anything through to its logical conclusion. Me writing about stuff on this blog also makes me feel retarded. Why am I wasting all my time thinking stuff instead of doing stuff? I especially feel this way when I have to get out of my room, and explain what I'm doing to other humans. ## Side Note - I am not sure if it is stable to run an organisation with such values. "I am a genocidal mass murderer fighting other genocidal mass murderers I secretly respect, to ally with the public who I secretly despise, to prevent artificial superintelligence from levelling the planet." - On one hand, I think it is very important that I am honest with myself and others what my actual motivations are. If I think of myself as a mass murderer, I should be honest about that. - On the other hand, if I actually start an organisation with such values, by default, I will end up having to play the game of [perceived benevolence](https://danfaggella.com/talk/) that Dan Fagella talks about. I will end up having to pretend to be nicer than I really am, in order to hire more people. - Even if I can handle the internal moral strain of "I am a mass murderer fighting even bigger mass murderers I secretly respect", it's not obvious all our employees can handle that much strain. I know if I just go hire some random russian cyberhackers they too will probably have their own shit rationalisations for why they are doing what they are doing. Like money, like family, like corruption of their own society, who knows. (Note to self, don't just fucking say "who knows", actually go read some more on their forums and check for the answer.) - I think (?) I get the point Aaron Swartz is making in his [blog post comparing Batman with actual activists like (presumably) himself](http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/tdk). Organisations operating under such internal moral strain might fail to reach their intended outcome. It is straightforwardly true that a world with zero privacy for everyone appeals to me in a similar way that a fair coin appeals to (whoever wrote the character for) Harvey Dent. (Does this guy have design docs? bob kane design docs cant find them) Atleast our organisation won't have to pick and choose who deserves to be cyberattacked versus not, whose information deserves to be redacted versus not and so on, in the way Julian Assange was forced to choose in the end. - All in all, I think it seems like a good idea to put more thought into the exact policies here, **before** I actually start the org. Once the org achieves some successes, we will be under a lot of attack and may have to invent lot of self-serving rationalisations to prevent employees from leaving. In the end, it is possible we just become yet another outfit of the Russian or Indian intelligence agencies, and have to accept whatever self-serving rationalisations they use in order to hire or fire people, and we have no independence of our own. - I think I should read some more great books (not just within EA/LW culture) to figure out organisational policies for this. - TO DO for self - Actually go talk to more russian cyberhackers. - Enough theory, go make contact with reality on this topic. It doesnt matter if you craft some perfect moral narrative and redaction policy and list of justifiable targets and all that, in your dungeon, if no competent hacker you can hire, actually finds it appealing. I know you're Investigator on Ray Dalio scale but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to make more contact with reality at a faster rate than you are, right now. - my default expectation is that russian cyberhackers would be even more skeptical of grand moral narratives, and just want to see the money, as compared to US cyberhackers - ugh I checked - this seems atleast somewhat true - what I actually need to is find american hackers and tell them to shift to russia, to prevent ASI from levelling the planet. - ok cool how do I find people in the intersection of ASI-pilled and hacker and blackhat? - that includes almost nobody lmao - ok so I have to either ASI-pill some blackhats, or blackhat-pill some ASI-pilled people - I should just try talking to more black hat hackers about ASI and see what happens. They are technical people so they'll atleast get what I'm saying, even if they think I'm crazy. Truth be told I have no idea how they will react. I know most will ignore but what about the remaining. Technical people respect someone who is just being honest and telling truth lol. (although they respect money and competence more) - ok cool what is the fastest way to reach lots of american hackers? honestly I can just start with cold email - ok cold email it is - Tbh if they're not completely stupid, I'm guessing they've already formed an opinion on attacking US govt and on Yudkowsky's book. I am probably not the first person to introduce them to either of these ideas. - note to self - is there some deeper force driving polarisation to extremes? - far-left activists are a stable position, and yudkowsky's doomer position seems like a stable position, but moderate positions seem unstable in the US population. why? - Idk I think it's just more of the US population growing more power-hungry with time, and realising that if they are given any moral narrative, they can just mutate it to a more radical version - okay that is fine, but why do the radical strains actually win? why is forming an organisation and hiring people with a moderate value system not working? its not obvious they are winning, or anyone is winning for that matter, it is just culture war. people are shifting to both more extremist and less extremist all the time. The important thing is that it is unstable. A=100 B=100 C=100 but static is less stable than A=100 B=100 C=100 but every year 10 people are moving from A to B and B to A - Idk I think it just boils down to - it is easier for competent people to actually stay competent if they are happy. Which requires some justification that actually lasts 5 years. Unsure text_english/personal/main/what_is_love.md000644 000765 000024 00000016735 15177753505 022013 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2025-12-10 # What is love? Disclaimer - **Quick Note** The more I go through life the more confused I get. Many of my fundamental questions seem to directly or indirectly centre around love, so I figured I should try framing things from this lens. #### A 1. The first time I was convinced my life was worth living was when I was 21 years old, and made some amazing friendships. This generally convinced me that having a few good relationships could make life worth living. 2. I seem increasingly convinced that the other thing that can make my life worth living is meaningful work. Work counts as meaningful to me if it can erase suffering or increase human happiness at scale. 3. I have realised we are increasingly moving towards a world where material needs (food, water, temperature etc) are solved. Just a 100-1000x in per capita energy use will basically solve all material needs for everyone. (People might then reproduce themselves back to subsistence levels, but let's skip that discussion for now.) What will be left is solving for physical safety and solving for relationships. Therefore if I want meaningful work, I need to understand physical safety or relationships better. 4. These two are interconnected. A major reason people lack physical safety is because they form groups that organise relationships in incompatible ways, and then try to use violence to force everyone to organise relationships their way. Most traditional religions work like this. Many geopolitical conflicts are deep down religious conflicts. 5. One nice world that I could aim for, is a world where people have physical safety despite differences in how they organise relationships. Another nice world that I could aim for, is a world where everyone has figured out compatible ways to organise their relationships. 6. Obtaining physical safety for everyone despite differences in how they organise relationships seems very hard. Democracy and capitalism are our current best bets for how to do this. 7. Unfortunately we are about to gain the ability to create new minds that are not capable of relationships at all, and these minds are likely to win the games of both democracy and capitalism. Genetically edited humans may lack the neurocircuitry required to love other humans. Artifical superintelligence may lack the code required to care about any beings at all, forget humans. Beings that are not capable of love are not just possible to create, but have an immense advantage at the game. 8. Even if we manage to coordinate to ban both technologies, this just pushes the buck to the future. Ultimately someone has to figure out either the objectively best way or multiple mutually compatible ways of organising relationships. #### B 1. I have now outgrown most of the relationships I formed a few years back. This mainly seems to be because our goals in life have diverged, both short-term goals and long-term goals. 2. Major reasons to have relationships include receiving advice, feeling seen/heard/understood and emotional coregulation. Advice and feeling seen are easier to do when you are both facing similar problems in life. Long-term relationships require iterated game, and hence strongest relationships are between people with shared goals. 3. This leads to a weird loop. The best form of love is with someone who cares about similar work as you. The best work is projects that allow more love to thrive in the world, beyond just between the two of you. The number one reason love cannot thrive in the world, is that multiple groups have figured out incompatible forms of love in the world, and are engaged in a holy war against each other. 4. Assume for a moment we got a hypothetical world where material needs (food, water, etc) were solved and physical safety was also solved, but optimal relationships were not solved. I'm genuinely confused what people in such a world would do. Meaingful relationships benefit from meaningful work to be done together. But there is possibly no work left to be done together, that could increase love in the world. You can't indirectly help people by solving material or safety needs, hence the only work you can do is to love people directly in different ways, preferably at scale. 5. I sometimes feel part of this world. I am basically post-scarcity and post-safety but pre-love. I'm genuinely confused what projects are worthwhile for me to work on, and what relationships are worthwhile for me to enter into. Most available options fall short of my expectations - I seem obsessed to believe that more is possible. #### C 1. A general heuristic I believe in more and more is to actually do all the thinking yourself, and forecast consequences until the heat death of the universe. Don't delegate problems to future people if you can help it. Examples: a) Don't just assume capitalism will lead to growth, actually go study what growth looks like and which tech leads to growth. Realise that Thiel was right - energy prices have stagnated at $0.10/kWh for almost a century, and most of our economy is bottlenecked by price of energy. b) Don't just assume someone else will solve AI alignment, actually go study it yourself. Realise that the core problem is the geopolitical arms race, not the technical difficulty of alignment itself. c) Don't just assume someone else will handle the downsides of capitalism, actually study what those are and whether anything can create sufficiently large downsides. Realise that creating new minds (ASI, HGE etc) are the primary examples. d) Don't just assume someone else will handle democratic backsliding, actually study it yourself. Realise that democracy will forever swing back and forth. Lock-in of bad values via surveillance is probably not possible unless you build ASI, as humans can coordinate and escape any other type of surveillance. Boxing population just like boxing AI. 2. The consequence of this heuristic is I should prefer figuring out for myself what optimal love looks like, and **not** helping construct a world where future people figure it out. 3. Another heuristic I believe in increasingly strongly is to talk to your customers, and your ideal customer is yourself. If I want to figure out optimal love for all of civilisation, maybe I should first figure out optimal love for myself. 4. Conclusion - I should get married, and the core thing binding us together should primarily be things that continue to hold true even after a world where material needs and physical safety is solved for everyone. 5. This does conflict with my current thinking around marriage. Half my criteria in my dating doc are based on criteria that only make sense in a world where physical safety is unsolved. I have listed stuff around "AI risk" or whatever, this basically means solving physical safety for other people. If it got solved, a lot of the stuff in my dating doc no longer makes sense. 6. Ted Kaczynski was right? It is funny though, that the number one person I respect on this topic is the Unabomber. Namely, how to organise work and relationships in a world where safety and material needs are solved. Atleast he is honest in saying he finds a solved world horrifying, to the point he advocates mass civilian violence to avoid it. I find all the EA answers inadequate, be it Yudkowsky's or Bostrom's or Karnofsky's - they either assume self-replication is the only meaningful work, or confuse physical pleasure with meaningful work and relationships, or assume some future people will figure out what meaningful work looks like. This is where I am currently stuck. I need to think more. text_english/personal/main/you_have_hit_diminishing_returns_from_theory.md000644 000765 000024 00000000745 15215513442 030551 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-20 # You have hit diminishing returns from theory Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Repeating this yet again so it actually sticks. You have hit diminishing returns on theorising on all the people-related problems in your life. Your theory is useful but do no more of it. Either interact with people and improve your ability to interact (via practice, not theory), or find better people (see list of events scheduled) or do surveys online. text_english/personal/main/I_sometimes_wish_I_had_suffered_even_more_in_my_childhood.md000644 000765 000024 00000001430 15261707243 033027 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-10-08 # I sometimes wish I had suffered even more in my childhood Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Maybe if I had suffered as much as Xi Jinping did, I would literally be in Xi Jinping's shoes right now. - Being put through terrible situations force you to make moral sacrifices and yet see your choices as the lesser evil. Making moral sacrifices causes you to harden your heart. This then allows you to make bigger moral sacrifices in future. - I wish my heart was as strong as someone like Xi Jinping. I envy some of the traits of these leaders. Go back and read the previous notes. You need to do boring shit work (like thiel wrote payment software), not study moral philosophy right now. One of these gets you way more power than the other. text_english/personal/main/create_an_egregore_to_shift_a_technological_offence_defence_balance.md000644 000765 000024 00000001137 15211100713 034763 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-07 # Create an egregore to shift a technological offence-defence balance Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Example - libertarianism - Techological offence-defence balance - guns make offence cost as much as defence, guns can be wielded by small groups and individuals, guns can be manufactured by small groups - Egregore - feelings of lack of control, safety, desire for power, etc - If I want a world with no privacy, I need to shift the technological offence-defence balance **and** create the egregore to defend it. It is not either/or, it is **and.** personal/main/X_took_two_full_days_off_for_hobbies_enjoyed_it_Y_maybe_do_more_of_this.md000644 000765 000024 00000001443 15240504575 035715 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english2026-08-17 # X: Took two full days off for hobbies, enjoyed it. Y: Maybe do more of this? Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Part of me is like, this vapid upper-middle class signalling game has rubbed off on you, don't waste your time, the singularity is coming, that is more important. Work six days a week still makes sense. - But part of me is also like, wait I actually enjoyed my weekend for a change. And there's no use "working" six days a week if you end up wasting a couple of those days due to bad mood and/or distraction. - I don't have a strong opinion either way. Maybe next weekend I will actually take two full days off for hobbies and see what happens. Applying heuristic, "think about next week or next century, don't think of anything in between"text_english/personal/main/I_want_to_see_more_violence_and_bloodshed.md000644 000765 000024 00000002507 15177753505 027652 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-02 # I want to see more violence and bloodshed Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** - Thinking aloud, I may not endorse these claims after thinking a lot. Main - The vibes of this [recent Pause AI deepmind protest](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaowO0rLvao) are too non-violent. - All the slogans make it look like this is a fucking joke, and not about the destruction of all life on Earth. - I want to be part of a protest where people where black and red and are actually visibly angry, not reciting pleasant nonsense. I want people inside the building to understand this group of people will literally slaughter you right there and then, if they didn't have the self-control they currently did. - No offence intended to Pause AI or the organisers. It's not your fault (if you're reading this.) - I want to see someone make a failed assassination attempt. Not because assassinations will actually fix ASI risk (they probably won't), but because that is what creates the appropriate environment. - I get that these people are scared of the law. But also, fuck the law, I would rather do something I actually believe in, or not do it at all. A shit protest that makes me unable to hold my own frame could be even worse than no protest at all. - If I attend a protest, I want more violent vibes. text_english/personal/main/board_games_I_like.md000644 000765 000024 00000004250 15252567051 023025 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-17 # Board games I like Disclaimer - personal - target audience - friends and potential friends Board games I like - Chess - I am above-average player at chess compared to average person who plays chess online. Highest rating I got is 1750 on lichess bullet (1+0) games. - Update - I played two FIDE tournaments in 2026-08, "performance rating" is around 1350 which I think is accurate. (Need 1400 to be a FIDE-rated player.) - Search FIDE ID "583074260" on [chess-results.com](https://chess-results.com). I decided to doxx myself after all. [1] - I no longer put much serious effort into actually improving, such as memorising openings or studying theory. I just play for timepass nowadays. I am aware I could improve a lot if I was serious about it. - Catan - Same, above-average player compared to average person who plays catan online. - Secret Hitler. Resistance, Avalon - I am a below-average player, but I like playing anyway. - Poker - I am above-average at poker but not good enough to play competitively. I tried. I like Haseeb Qureshi's book on it. I am not seriously trying to improve my skill level here. - New board games - I think I'm quite good at [general game-playing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_game_playing). As in, if you had me play against others many new board games that neither them nor us have ever played before, I think I'd do decently well. Given a set of rules, I can often quickly deduce what the meta would look like, without having to actually play the game many times first. (I have some experience here, although I may want to play with more skilled people to get a better sense of my actual skill level here is.) --- Side Note for myself [1] I guess if someone wants to stalk me, plant a bug on me, rob me or kidnap me, I've given them an easy way to do so. Just setup a cron job to pull this page, and then visit in-person when you notice I am at a tournament. I am a little surprised that chess tournaments are this public. But this just further reinforces my prior that maintaining privacy against dedicated attackers is really hard and I should not bother until it is really critical. Offense wins defense loses text_english/personal/main/an_interaction_I_had_was_very_painful.md000644 000765 000024 00000000642 15215476755 027036 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-20 # An interaction I had was very painful Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - An interaction I had was very painful. - Couldn't work the whole of today as a result. Couldn't exercise, which I wish I could. - Not writing more about it here. - I've gotten barely 3.5 days of productive work output this week. Update - Issue got resolved. I don't regret this interaction.text_english/personal/main/miscellaneous_notes_from_visiting_beach.md000644 000765 000024 00000012475 15177753505 027461 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-07 most of the orignal notes from 2026-05-05 # Miscellaneous notes from visiting beach Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - target audience - strictly myself - This is just a random assortment of (mostly) unimportant thoughts of mine from visiting the beach. I am not entirely sure why I am even recording them. Maybe to balance all the serious posts with some fun posts? I don't know. - I made these notes while in Russia. Have deleted anything even slightly related to politics or AI or similar topic. Main - Optimal way of throwing a stone into the ocean, to maximise distance traversed - Disclaimer - I generally kinda suck with motor skills (sports/dancing/etc), so I'm sure someone has a better technique than me. Also I just thought this on the spot, no AI use or serious thinking. - Bend fingers to maintain 90 degree angle with your palm. Keep fingers completely flat and joined. Throw a flat-shaped stone with high surface area contact with hand so it slides off. Increase the angular theta your arm rotates before the stone leaves your hand, but do this via changing arm motion not the shape of hand, stone should still slide off naturally. Don't move your fingers and don't use them to either push or pull the stone. - (Update 2026-05-07) The angular acceleration of your arm is by far the most important thing. It reminds me of one of those fucking JEE problems. `Assume stone is in hand as it moves from (r, theta_1, phi_1) to (r, theta_2, phi_2) in an arc-shaped trajectory centred at the origin of the coordinate system. For simplicity, assume muscles applied constant tangential force F for this duration. Find distance traversed by stone.` I wish computer science was as "pure" as physics honestly. I actually liked studying JEE physics. Whereas with software, it is full of random shit like some linux developer wrote in some random quirky behaviour into how the TLB is read 20 years ago, and now you have to just suck it up and deal with it, good luck finding documentation. This is why I hate software more than I hate physics. But software is where all the wealth and power has been, atleast until recently. So I am grudgingly forcing myself to learn it, just I was grudgingly forcing myself to learn it many years back. - Wave equations for waves hitting the beach - Probably unsolved analytically only via simulation. I have not googled it - I tried find the position of the moon by keeping my arms outstretched at 180 degrees from each other, with one arm pointing at the sun - I'm sure people found all sorts of hacks like this for direction, in olden times - Also hacks for lighting fire, for instance. The beach had bottles with either petrol or diesel, and wood, and stones. And I had a lighter and it was a bit windy. It is actually a non-trivial problem to build a fireplace such that the petrol fire transfers to the wood before the petrol burns out. I tried some jugaads, but not happy with what I tried. - People on internet are different and/or unhappy - Corporate slaves are out there actually working, they have no reason to write online. - Similarly, people actually having fun are actually having fun, they have no reason to write online. - People who are unhappy have a reason to write online, out of desperation to find someone who cares about them. - Similarly, people in either weird or ambitious careers (or both) have a reason to write online, to widen the net of people they can reach beyond 2nd / 3rd degree connections. - I'm writing this post to balance all my unhappy with some fun posts. but realistically, I don't actually feel like posting a lot of fun stuff because who cares, fun is meant to be had in the moment not reflected on afterwards. - I would rather kill myself than be you - I have disliked corporate slavery since I was like maybe 16, I knew I had to git gud at software or entrepreneurship since I was 18, I knew about ASI risk when I was 22, now that I'm 25, ... [REDACTED] - I can in full honesty tell 99% of people "I would rather kill myself than be you". What kind of nonsensical lives do most people lead lmao? Idk I actually feel behind compared to where I could have been at the age of 25. But we will see. Life is a marathon not a sprint. - Low probability of death when leaving the beach - Small amount of trouble at the end when I realised the water line had shifted (it had become evening, moon position shifted) and there was a possibility I could not actually walk back to where I came from. Worst case I could literally die trapped in this beach. Once the gap between the cliff and the waterline closed to zero at any point along the stretch, I would be stranded. And once I am stranded, the water could keep rising until the entire stretch of beach got submerged by water completely. - Probability of dying was small but also downside was so large I figured I should run faster. Also the EV of carrying my clothes seemed tiny so I considered just dropping the clothes in my hand to run faster and save some seconds. I didn't ultimately drop the clothes. I think I am quite rational and non-panicky when it comes to immediate life or death situations. - See for example the train accident or bike accident I've been in, or being at risk being bitten by dogs in some places, or being physically threatened. - Note to self - maybe I should make some public note about all these experiences? text_english/personal/main/date_me_notes_to_self.md000644 000765 000024 00000017267 15250042242 023627 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-08 # Date me (notes to self) Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself --- 2026-09-08 ## Update - It is a bit funny. - The surface-level criteria from both sides seem to be roughly looks, status and humour/fun. - Median woman does appreciate looks, status and humour/fun, atleast in superficial 60 second judgments. - I too prefer a partner who crosses a certain looks threshold, and is atleast somewhat capable of appreciating some aspects of life. Basically I also care about looks and fun in a partner, I just don't have a very high bar, that's all. I don't care about partner's status but I care about them being independent and not under their parents' control. - Living in same city is a mandatory criteria, since we don't yet have tech to have sex remotely lol. - The long-term criteria I notice so far are mono/poly, kids and "acceptance" frontiers around core values. - The main deep confusions I still have are: - why do women care about men's status? (I know the evolutionary explanation, I wanna understand why this survives reflection) - acceptance frontiers around core values - this sounds like a multi-year project tbh, to actually deeply understand this - In an ideal world, you can use community to pre-filter all this. - Ideally I should be part of a community that grants high status (i.e. respects, admires, appreciates) to the things I also actually respect, and finds fun the things I actually find fun. - If I was hypothetically part of such a community, then I won't feel like I need to pretend to be someone I am not, in order to score high on the status or humour/fun metrics. --- 2026-08-21 Shifting this section out of the document and putting a condensed version there, because it could benefit from more "show dont tell" ## My extreme traits - See also: [My personality test results](../../connect_with_me/my_personality_test_results.html) - My guess is that I am above 90 percentile honest. Should be self-evident looking at this blog lol. - I am decent (but maybe not 90 percentile) at keeping commitments. As per Ray Dalio personality test, I am 52 percentile reliable. I think I am most reliable as a support during actual emergencies. If there is no emergency, I tend to avoid making promises (exceptions exist). Saying all this based on personal experience (can't share here for privacy reasons). - As per Big 5 personality test (and also my own observations), I am above 90 percentile on Conscientiousness. I have a decent level of executive function and can handle responsibility (atleast while my mental health is not bad). - I have never been IQ-tested but I am probably atleast 80 percentile on IQ. I know mainstream society considers it low status to boast about your IQ, but I honestly believe a lot of specific competence is just downstream of IQ + Conscientiousness + putting in the hours. And I think a lot of people value competence. - As per Big 5 personality test (and also my own observations), I am above 90 percentile on Openness to Experience. As per Ray Dalio test, I am above 90 percentile Adventurous. This will be very obvious to you if you read my personal experiences above, or hear more of the details that are not shared above. - As per Ray Dalio personality test (and also my own observations), I am above 90 percentile on Creativity. I never figured out a very organised way to do this though (like becoming a composer or artist or similar). I used to draw and invent a lot of mazes as a kid, if that counts. - As per Ray Dalio personality test (and also my own observations), I am above 90 percentile on Independence and being not Status-seeking. I think this should also be obvious looking at my worldview or past and present life plans. - I am probably 90 percentile on making notes about people. I have a bad memory but I want to deeply understand people, hence this. Expect me to have hundreds of pages of notes about you if we spend a few years together. --- 2026-08-15 ## Update - deleted this link from main document as I think this is no longer relevant - [My older (now abandoned) date me doc](./date_me_old.md) - Biased by Geoffrey Miller's criteria, which I trust but only partially. It is too aimed at the median man or woman, and I'm not aiming to be either the median man, or look for median woman. - restructured the doc based on some feedback - shifted this section to notes to self I have not tried to share a lot of info about myself on this doc itself. Why? 1. I don't yet know what is the best way to sell myself and who my target audience is. Hence I am just spamming lots of info instead. - The basic stack to attract the median woman atleast via a superficial 60-second judgement seems to just be looks, status and humour as far as I can tell. - For looks, you can see my photos above. - For humour, I am not a very funny person and not really trying to be one. - For status, the median woman (looking for LTR, in my socioeconomic class, in my city) as far as I can tell, has internalised status heirarchies revolving around their partner getting a corporate job and being respected by both families and having hobbies and so on. I clearly intensely dislike the status heirarchies of mainstream society. Median woman doesn't appreciate more niche markers of status. - I also clearly don't want to attract the median woman and I seem to be aiming for someone niche. - I don't have a very good understanding of these niches. What would some women like about me in particular, and which particular types of women these are. I haven't better scoped out who is my target audience basically. 2. I increasingly think that some of this stuff is best done via ["show, don't tell"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show%2C_don't_tell). - See also: [Why use "show, don't tell" on date me docs](./why_use_show_dont_tell_on_date_me_docs.md) 3. Some things I actually can't post publicly, to protect privacy of others. - For instance, I can't publicly post about romantic things I've done for women in the past. --- 2026-06 ## Update Note 1 - I know this is something like the 4th or 5th "date me" document I have written but a part of me wants to scrap it and rewrite it yet again. Here's why: - The document is 95% correct only, but it doesn't [carve reality at the joints](https://www.lesswrong.com/w/carving-clustering-reality). - You could say this is just neuroticism or anxiety, but I don't actually think this fully explains it. - Great explanations are simple and elegant. The document is below is not elegant. Hence I will work more on it. - I am interested in outlier outcomes in life, and am willing to pour outlier amounts of effort into it, even if some of that goes to waste. - Meme - Broke: Optimise distribution - as in optimise for all the surface-level stuff of how you appear to others - Woke: Optimise product - figure out more core stuff such as your values and so on, such that you become more attractive to others on the market - Bespoke: Reality-distortion field - understand relationships so deeply that you can persuade lots of other people that they'd want to become the person you want them to be, even if currently there are zero people on the market for you. Note 2 - Note to self - This is a skill issue on my part and I should probably try to fix this soon. Maybe I should go pay for some surveys or interview some women over this. Need practical data, not theoretical data. Trust revealed preferences not stated preferences, because people lie a lot on this topic for status-related reasons. Note 3 - As of 2026-06, I have deliberately chosen not to do more theory on this. Either actually meet people, or do surveys, or both, and report results here. Prefer the X Y format when writing more on this topic. I_precommit_to_visiting_a_shooting_range_in_bangkok_or_other_city_with_lax_regulations_in_2026.md000644 000765 000024 00000003371 15232322011 042251 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main2026-07-29 ## Update - See also: [Think about the next week or the next century, don't think of anything in between](./think_about_the_next_week_or_the_next_century_dont_think_of_anything_in_between.md) - For reasons described above, I no longer believe in attaching hard deadlines to items on my wishlist. So I free myself from the commitment that I have to do this in 2026. - My wishlist still includes San Francisco, Taipei City and Bangkok (for shooting). To a smaller extent, maybe London and Berlin but these seem less important tbh. To a smaller extent, maybe Hangzhou or Chongqing or similar, but that seems like more of a plan for when you're more vella and not worried about ASI risk. - The wishlist still exists, I just refuse to put hard deadlines on any of it. --- 2026-07-22 # I precommit to visiting a shooting range in Bangkok (or other city with lax regulations) in 2026 Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself - I considered keeping this note private. However, everything mentioned here is basically legal so I don't see the need to keep it private. Main - I pre-commit to visiting a shooting range in Bangkok in 2026. - There do exist some worst case worlds where I would prefer knowing how to shoot, versus not. (I will not elaborate here. But you can use your imagination, if you are reading this.) - Visiting bangkok is easy for me because visa, plus lax gun regulations. (Shooting ranges in India require a gun license if you wanna shoot there, atleast if you go the legal route.) - I am not motivated at all to plan yet another trip right now. So I will postpone this plan by some months. But also, I have to execute on this plan, the default is to do nothing. So I am using this pre-commit to force myself. text_english/personal/main/visakanv_says_humour_is_about_a_balanced_amount_of_meaning.md000644 000765 000024 00000002727 15205274021 033326 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-26 # Visakanv says humour is about a balanced amount of meaning? Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I do think something similar to this is probably true: "Humour is a hard-to-fake signal of having resolved internal conflict, hence, for example, many women prioritise it in dating." But also, more generally, a lot of people like funny shows and so on. - I have never in my life been that into humour, or that funny myself. Among a few people I trust and feel safe with, I sometimes crack lame jokes, but that's about it. - Visakanv has a different hypothesis that it is about meaning/purpose? X should mean something to you but not mean so much that you're unable to laugh about it. - I am not sure how to react to this. I don't have enough data. Forget data, I don't even know how to reframe things in a way such that this makes sense. - For instance, yes I don't find it funny that govts use violence against citizens, and I don't find it funny that I am considering some violence in response. This gives me meaning yes, but it isn't fun. Why should it be fun? I don't think people fighting any war considered the war itself fun? Sure, you can have fun with other people you trust, who are fighting the war alongside you. But this does not mean the war itself becomes fun. It just means you need to find people you trust to fight the war with, but also do things with them besides fighting a war. (I am interested in meeting people like this.) text_english/personal/main/repression.md000644 000765 000024 00000005742 15177753505 021515 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-31 # Repression ## You're allowed to want both? Part of me still seems to want casual sex. Part of me gets reminded by past experiences and realises that median casual sex experience is just kinda mediocre and not worth optimising for. And like, actually falling in love is so different from this it doesn't even compare. Like, it's not even about magnitude or intensity, they're just completely different experiences. Or so I've observed. Extrapolation from limited data. Maybe useful to remember that there isn't exactly a strong conflict between these two desires. I'm allowed to want both. The problem is just, both of these are non-linear difficulty curve but in different directions? And honestly both of these feel like a distraction from what is actually my life priority right now. Like, having a gf is great, but pursuing gf is waste of scarce resource, namely my attention. You can have only one idea at the top of your head. This is like the most boring problem in the world, someone must have solved it already. Or does everyone just suffer internal conflict over stuff like this? I know a lot of people have similar internal conflict (wanting gf, but not wanting to waste all of one's attention pursuing one), I don't know who solved it though. ## Invert every idea in two ways Many thinkers seem to have ideas in similar cluster - Carl Jung on shadow - "Judgment is shame projected outwards" - IFS-type stuff - the parts of you that you supress in yourself, are parts you'll also want to suppress in others - Attention is a scarce resource, if you're paying attention to X, you're also paying attention to Not X. The rest of the world maybe doesn't even think about X. Some examples: - Sentence: "If you keep blindly listening to your family for all your life decisions, the world will end and it'll be your fault." - Negative: "If you keep blindly listening to your family for all your life decisions, maybe the world won't end." - First-person: "If I start listening to my family for my life decisions, maybe the world won't end." - Sentence: "Lots of casual sex won't make you happy." - Negative: "Lots of casual sex might you happy." - First-person: "Maybe casual sex could make me happy too." - Sentence: "If I pay attention to your hobbies, I will lose focus on what I care about, and dislike myself more." - Negative: "If I pay attention to your hobbies, I might not lose focus on what I care about." - Sentence: "War against the AI companies is the only option." - Negative: "War against the AI companies is not the only option." - Sentence: "I will be happy when I am more successful in life." - Negative: "I will not be happy even if I am more successful in life." - Negative (kind of): "I am not happy therefore I will not be successful in life." - Sentence: "I miss the person I was in my previous relationship." - Negative: "I don't miss the person I was in my previous relationship." Okay I'm not happy with these examples. Will write more examples later. text_english/personal/main/systematic_moral_blinding.md000644 000765 000024 00000005264 15204266353 024537 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-10 # Systematic moral blinding - Calling someone out for moral reasons is one of the strongest signals not just to them, but everyone like them who hears about it, to avoid you as a person. That way you lose access to any knowledge or power they might have had, or could connect you to. - Heck, I think even writing this paragraph here has a non-zero blinding effect. - I do think there is a lot of systematic moral blinding going on in society, for various reasons. Because I am most obsessed with AI, I understand this best in the AI case. - People working at AI companies systematically blind themselves to information coming from anti-AI people like me, and vice versa people like me may have a tendency to systematically blind myself to information coming from the AI companies on why pro-AI makes sense. - Some things we still have in common are general thirst for knowledge, lots of shared context on the ideas popular in silicon valley, and sometimes a shared belief that ASI might be actually be coming (when most of rest of society doesn't believe this). - I think these common things might be why the blinding is not yet absolute. I wouldn't be surprised if the blinding becomes absolute, soon. - As of today, yes, I do generally seem to be making a tradeoff to value knowledge more than I value power. - Which is to say, I really do wanna know about all the harms going on in society, because that information is useful for me to take good decisions. - I do think the internet is forcing people to update on each other's moral intuitions quite fast, even groups that are stuck in eternal culture war with each other. I'm afraid this rate is not fast enough as compared to ASI timelines. I would love to build a "particle collider for morality" to accelerate this, if I knew how to do it. - Right now it seems like I'm literally trying to become the particle collider myself lmao - collide SV activism with international affairs. collide international affairs with nationalism. collide SV activism with leftist activism. collide SV activism with billionaire. collide billionaire with international affairs. collide billionaire with traditional religion. collide finance with cryptocurrency. collide cryptography academia with cryptocurrency. p.s. justin rosenstein's "one project" experimented with something like this, if I remember. get a US census representative group of people to actually physically meet in a hall and discuss their political views with each other p.p.s. gwern branwen seems to be taking on atleast a somewhat similar approach, of personally trying to read very widely, and then find intersections between fields. but gwern is way less focussed on morality than I am. text_english/personal/main/is_my_interest_in_fixing_asi_risk_out_of_self_interest_or_altruism.md000644 000765 000024 00000016331 15177753505 035214 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-04 updates 2026-03-05 # Is my interest in fixing ASI risk out of self-interest or altruism? Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - Trigger warning - murder, suicide - **Contains politically sensitive info** Main - I have often wondered if my obsession with fixing ASI risk comes from self-interest or altruistic interest. - I've gone back and forth on this multiple times with no clear conclusion. - Many life philosophies explicitly demarcate the two, so it seems important to figure out which of these is driving me more. (Assuming a comparison like this is possible.) - Here's yet another of my hypothesis around this topic: - Back in college I started gaining some interest in being altruistic, only after my basic needs had been met. For instance, having enough friends and having enough money and having freedom and so on. I am self-interested by default, but once all of those basic needs are satisfied, then I seem more interested in altruism. - Nowadays, altruism for me increasingly means steering the world in a direction I like, which could be different than the direction you like. I could totally screw people over while still being altruistic. It just means that underlying motivation was vaguely to help some set of people or the other. You cannot help everyone. - However, now that I am internalising that I personally might be murdered by the people at the AI companies, I am again adopting an increasingly self-interested stance. Saving my own life is primary, saving other people's lives is secondary. I think I have have non-zero amount of care for other people's lives too, but I think saving my own life is now way more important. - There are some edge cases where I have flirted with the idea of sacrificing my life to prevent ASI risk. I think most of all I want to steer the future in a way I like. I have understood a lot more, how zero sum politics is, and how I will necessarily have to screw over people even if I want good for a lot of people. --- 2026-03-05 ## Update - More thoughts: - Even before I knew about ASI risk, I have often asked myself thought experiments like: - Q1: For what dollar value $N am I willing to kill a loved one? - Q2: How many strangers (M) am I willing to kill to save my own life? - Q3: How many loved ones am I willing to kill to save my own life? Is there any loved one for whom I would sacrifice my own life? - For any lesswrong fuckers reading this, I am not an impartial utilitarian. I obviously care about myself and loved ones more than strangers, and this continues to hold true after a lot of reflection. - To protect privacy of people in my social circle, I have to remove a lot of details around which people in my circle, and what I thought when, and what specific events in my life led to what thinking, and so on. - Some thoughts on answers: - A1: At one point I thought the answer to first question (dollar value to kill a loved one) was $10M. I soon realised this number was too low. I would be taking a hit to both my self-esteem and my reputation, it could be irreversible and prevent me from acting as effectively in future, and hence $10M is too low a number. - A2: I am definitely slaughtering atleast a hundred strangers to save myself. It is only when this number goes into actual billions of people that it becomes more clear to me that I'd rather sacrifice myself. I don't know what the answer is if I was faced with a decision involving a few thousand or a few million people. - A3: I have a lot of personal experiences here, but, to protect privacy of people around me, I can't talk about any of it. **The really short version is that I don't think there's a single person in my life where I can confidently say I would sacrifice my life to save theirs.** - I have increasingly moved away from thought experiments to answer such questions though: - See [Power buys you distance from the crime by Elizabeth]. It is easy to press a button or order your subordinates to kill people. It's much harder to pick a gun or knife and kill them yourself. - It is easy to make a quick action overnight. (Just like, say, it is easier to commit suicide on impulse overnight, than to actually think it through and do it.) It is much harder to spend a few years actually systematically planning to kill people. The latter requires a lot more internal moral clarity and conviction. When you run a thought experiment, you're often trying to simulate the former not the latter. **So, not only is it difficult to get accurate forecasts when you run this simulation in your mind, but you're also trying to simulate the wrong thing.** - At the very least, try using thought experiments where you have to spend a month planning the murder, and you have to commit the murder with a knife, not by pressing a button. - Coming back to ASI risk: - Now that the stakes are literal billions of murders, it's again looking increasingly promising for me to justify instrumental harm to stop this. - I am definitely willing to take a knife and kill tens of strangers and even some of my loved ones, if I could guarantee saving my own life in the end. - But, when I am contemplating civilisation-level moves like blowing open everyone's secrets all at once (this could get millions of people killed), I seem a lot more hesitant. Killing these many people doesn't seem worth it, if the only goal is saving my own life. It may be worth it, if the goal is saving other billions of people. I am again forced to take a more impartial detached stance here, when contemplating such big moves. - I still seem increasingly okay with planning a hundred simultaneous assassintions to save my own life. Especially since I will not actually be assassinating any of my loved ones here. I don't need to be altruistic to endorse something like this. The reason I am not planning a hundred assassinations seems more to do with this plan being too hard (compared to other plans), not because I have some moral principle against it. - There's also the question of whether I am willing to spend my life in jail, just to succeed at the hundred assassination plan. I think the answer is yes. If the goal was just saving my own life, it's not so clear. But since we will save literal billions of people, then yes, I can sacrifice my life. - I continue to love the comments in Inside the acquarium, that talk about how the biggest mass murderers in history (like Stalin and Mao) think of themselves as doing a great good. They might treat their loved ones well and even animals around them well. I think there is a deep truth to this. If I end up killing millions of people in real life, it seems a lot more likely that I was motivated by some altruistic greater good logic, than I was motivated by saving my own life. - Very interesting - does this basically mean I am applying utilitarianism but I give my own life the moral weight of 100 lives, and some of my loved ones get a moral weight of maybe 10 lives? - I don't know, I don't want to force fit a theory here, before I collect enough raw data I actually trust. As mentioned above, thought experiments are a dog shit method of collecting raw data, only actual life experience is trustworthy, but that is a fucking slow process. Need to move faster to speed run this. text_english/personal/main/I_have_wasted_a_year_of_my_life_arguing_on_the_internet.md000644 000765 000024 00000001222 15177753505 032543 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-25 # I have wasted a year of my life arguing on the Internet Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - To be clear, I have done a bunch of productive stuff over the last year, including the hunger strike and whistleblower guide and failed youtube channel and whatnot. - But also, the basic plan to cyberattack the AI companies and leak info, was a plan I proposed a year ago itself on LW. - Don't waste any more time arguing with these people on LW. Get their feedback, sure, but if you disagree with them, just state the disagreement and end conversation. You are here to find the few people who agree with you, not persuade everyone who disagrees. text_english/personal/main/minimalism_is_a_status_game.md000644 000765 000024 00000000545 15177753505 025046 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-08 # Minimalism is a status game Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - I think minimalism has real value for me because it helps me focus on things that matter in the long-term, over things that don't. - However, it is also true that minimalism is a popular status game in tech circles. Wearing simple clothes or living in a backpack or whatnot. text_english/personal/main/I_miss_the_version_of_myself_that_was_capable_of_enjoying_slow_travel.md000644 000765 000024 00000001755 15254262233 035554 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-21 # I miss the version of myself that was capable of enjoying slow travel Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - So much rage. Sometimes I surprise myself with how much anger I am capable of preserving in myself, and for how long. - Buried under 2-3 years of ephemeral happiness is 20 years of accumulated rage. - I should learn to separate my anger from childhood stuff (and around religion) from my anger around ASI risk stuff. These are two different sources of anger and deserve two different responses. With the first one, there is a lot of time so I am playing the long game. With the second one, time is at an extreme premium, every single week of lost time can come to haunt me on my deathbed. - Anyway ya, seeing some hinge profiles reminded me of how happy I was while travelling, atleast some of the time. Sad I am not capable of enjoying in the same way anymore. Too focussed on my goal, anything besides my goal goes in mental "delete" bucket now. text_english/personal/main/my_hobby_wishlist.md000644 000765 000024 00000012775 15245520664 023060 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-01 ## Update - **This document strictly superceded by newer documents. Ignore this document if you want latest info.** - See also: [Hobby wishlist 2026-09](./hobby_wishlist_2026_09.md) --- 2026-08-31 ## Update Next 1-3 weeks - Continue learning more - Salsa - Do minimum intro and stop - Ham radio - get license and stop - Do minimum intro and then decide - Drums - Learn 1-2 songs and decide whether to continue - Massage - Learn basics and decide whether to continue Later possibly never - Do minimum intro - Victorian flower language (#) - learn basics - Shooting (#) - Running - Infantry combat training (which is a superset of shooting, running and a bunch of other skills) - Learn more - Mandarin language classes - join in-person to retain motivation - Swimming - improve form - Driving - practice more to refresh memory - Chess - play more tournaments for fun --- 2026-08-26 ## Update Next 1-3 weeks - Continue learning more - Salsa - Do minimum intro and stop - Ham radio - get license and stop - Do minimum intro and then decide - Drums - Learn 1-2 songs and decide whether to continue - Massage - Learn basics and decide whether to continue Later possibly never - Do minimum intro - Victorian flower language (#) - learn basics - Shooting (#) - Running - Infantry combat training (which is a superset of shooting, running and a bunch of other skills) - Learn more - Swimming - improve form - Driving - practice more to refresh memory - Chess - play more tournaments for fun --- 2026-08-17 ## Update Here is the full updated list as of 2026-08-17 Meta notes - In accordance with the heuristic "think about next week or next century, don't think about anything in between", I will only maintain two lists - one for stuff I can do in the "next 1-3 weeks", and one for "later possibly never". - Hash mark (#) indicates that I am more excited to one day shift this item into the "next 1-3 weeks" list, but excitement level could always be quite different 2 weeks from now. - Basic heuristic I still endorse - "Either learn hobbies with good gender ratio, or learn skills (not hobbies) for combat. Nothing else seems worth learning." For everything else, do the bare minimum and then stop, just refresh your memory every few months or something. Learning muscle memory-based hobbies takes a certain minimum amount of time, and ASI may be less than 5 years away, so use your time efficiently. Next 1-3 weeks - Continue learning more - Salsa - Do minimum intro and stop - Ham radio - get license and stop - Chess - get FIDE rating and stop - Do minimum intro and then decide - Drums - Learn 1-2 songs and decide whether to continue - Massage - Learn basics and decide whether to continue Later possibly never - Do minimum intro - Victorian flower language (#) - learn basics - Shooting (#) - Running - Infantry combat training (which is a superset of shooting, running and a bunch of other skills) - Learn more - Swimming - improve form - Driving - practice more to refresh memory --- 2026-08-11 ## Update - Append to "later but not too later" list: - Spend a few days studying Victorian flower language properly - It doesn't seem that difficult, but also, I want to study some primary sources instead of relying on gpt-N - I want to burn a bouquet of white lilies and cypress in order to mourn the dead. It would be sad if the world ends before anyone had done a ritual such as this. Also reminded me of the white roses that President Snow wore. - Shift from "later but not too later" to "now": - Get ham radio license. Exam seems easy, I will just give the next exam whenever it is. - Append to "now": - Get a FIDE rating. Very easy, can do this over a weekend or two. Lol it looks like this is becoming a live document, not a static one. --- 2028-08-09 ## Update - Append to the "later but not too later" list: - get a ham radio license. atleast learn basics of operating a ham radio --- 2026-08-06 ## Update Prioriting because I have limited number of free hours per week, and chaos and decay are the natural state of things i.e. go enrol into something ASAP otherwise it won't happen now - dance - playing music - massage - ??? later but not too later - shooting later possibly never - swimming - driving --- 2026-08-05 # My hobby wishlist Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Playing instruments - I'm already decent at it, might as well use it to socialise with more people (esp. women) - Shooting - Useful for worst case worlds, cannot elaborate more here - Massage - Seems popular with (some) women. - Also I will reiterate my current hypotheses on how to get good at persuasion - you need to either work on very surface-level bullshit that can be judged in a few minutes (like stimulate their eyes, nose, ears, mouth, skin, make sure your content is in their working memory, play confidence games, use music/rituals/etc) or you need to go very deep and shatter the core of who they are on a decadal time scale (actually shift their position on MtG colour wheel, actually help them cope with a major source of suffering). Getting good at massage sounds like more surface-level stuff just like getting good at music or experimenting with fragrances. - Driving - Can always get better. Idk, seems like a very common hobby that couldn't hurt to try as well - Low priority - Swimming - Can always improve my form, plus it is fun in low doses - Low priority text_english/personal/main/dating_and_political_extremes_and_I_am_willing_to_die_over_asi_risk.md000644 000765 000024 00000024464 15206643406 035117 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-31 ## Update - See also: ["Actually agree" versus "agree to disagree yet accept" versus "do not accept"](./actually_agree_versus_agree_to_disagree_yet_accept_versus_do_not_accept.md) > - Ideal: Polyamorous longterm relationship, wants kids but later, atheist, anti-ASI pro-Enlightenment ideology, literally willing to die to stop ASI just like I am > - Willing to settle for: Monogamous shortterm relationship, doesn't matter if they want kids, religious or atheist either is okay, their ideology doesn't matter as long as we don't meet too often and try to actually listen to each other when we do meet, they should also be genuinely okay with short-term and not pretending to. This section is wrong as per the type-1/type-2/type-3 typology. - In the type-1 versus type-2 versus type-3 typology, being anti-ASI and pro-Enlightenment is not sufficient to make someone a type-1. They still have to agree to the exact specific actions you are doing, otherwise they are still a type-2. Everyone listed in the "willing to settle for" is basically a type-2. 2026-05-29 # Dating and political extremes, and I am willing to die over ASI risk Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I was just reading about people on reddit talking about their opinions on dating across political differences, especially across political extremes. - And I was just thinking, hypothetically if we did not meet very often, would I be okay dating a literal nazi, or a literal communist or a super conservative hindu, and so on. - I don't know, I think being poly itself narrows the search space by a lot, a super conservative hindu is unlikely to agree to be poly for instance. I might be fine dating a literal nazi as long as we didn't meet that often and didn't discuss some topics. (This is theory, and I know practice is easier said than done.) - Honestly I equally shit on most political positions lol, there are too many people for whom politics is an aesthetic rather than a mission they sacrifice their life to. I'm okay dating almost anyone who just has dumb aesthetic political positions. - This is a good heuristic - **If you are not willing to sacrifice your life for your political position, maybe you don't really have a political position but instead an aesthetic.** - I think I am okay dating anyone who just has an aesthetic like this, that is different from mine. But I am not sure, this is a very weak guess. - The real challenge is when both of you are in fact willing to sacrifice your lives (and maybe even the lives of other people) for very different political positions. - **Important** - whenever I do run the dating values transition survey, one question I have to ask people is whether they are in fact willing to sacrifice their life for their political position or not. My guess is that a lot of traditional religious people will answer yes, and a lot of liberals / communists / atheist conservatives / etc will answer no. - If my guess is right, this means I am in fact one of the few atheists who is literally willing to die for their politics. This actually makes me kind of rare. - Wait, holy shit, I am probably right, right? I am obviously not the only one, there have been people in history who were willing to die over Enlightenment values for instance. - Lmao I now get why people call the ASI stuff a secular religion lol. - Lmao next time I organise a protest (whenever it is), my poster should say "I am willing to die to stop superintelligence from being built by 2030." - "Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." - Benjamin Franklin, 1789 Main 2 - Lol, I'm trying to think this through the other way round though. Imagine there were in fact hundreds of people around me (both men and women) who were in fact willing to die to stop ASI. Would I be dating outside of this community? Probably not, right? Like, it won't be a dealbreaker per se, it's just less efficient. - I think atleast some political demographics are like this, people date within the demographic because it is easier, not because they have a hard line against dating outside of it. - This means the more ambitious path for me is **not** to figure out how to tolerate a relationship with someone with different politics, the more ambitious path for me is to personally go convince hundreds of people that they should be willing to die to stop ASI, and then date one of these people. Lol. This still doesn't solve the value transition problem after you are already dating though, what if either person stops caring about the ASI risk stuff? - Why am I so determined to permanently solve this problem? Why do I have an issue with just changing partners every few years? Many people do this and they seem, fine? Not ideal, but fine. I don't know, in the worst case yes I might just give up on solving this problem. But for now I want to first atleast make a proper attempt at solving it. - Holy fuck, I am super distracted by this. Should I just officially declare a week or two off from work in order to solve this? Ugh What are the generators of political beliefs? - going back to the earlier topic of making someone feel seen/heard/understood/etc, the problem is not so much the final opinion itself as much as it is the generator of the opinion. Like, there is some cluster of emotions, then some reasoning chain, then the actual opinion. You can make someone feel seen if you understand the cluster of emotions, even if you finally disagree with the opinion. - You need to distance or similar, iff you are unable to do this aspect of making people feel seen. - Okay so the question is not "which political opinions make it hard for you to make the other person feel seen/heard/understood/etc" it is "which clusters of emotions could the other person have, such that it is hard for you to make them feel seen/heard/understood/etc" - Wait I probably already have a classification system for emotions sitting in my notes somewhere, I will have to go hunt it down. I was staring at this emotion wheel lol - For so many of these emotions, my reaction is not that I don't understand it, my reaction is that it is **stupid** to feel this emotion in this context, this emotion doesn't actually serve your longer term goals. - Basically I have low tolerance for lack of growth mindset, in myself or in other people. Like, I hold myself to this standard too, not just others. It is quite bad that some of my notes have commonalities with notes I wrote over a year ago. It means one full year of my life has gone and I still haven't fixed some of these issues. - And imagine if my partner doesn't have any longterm goals, or they have longterm goals I disagree with, then what? What does it even mean to consider an emotion stupid versus not, when their goals themselves are stupid. - Okay so then just, understand and move on? This feels so hollow. Lmao I'm now trying to imagine having sex with my male friends lol - Imagine I was in fact gay, and I would in fact find this pleasurable. Would I do it? I don't know it is a bit hard to run this thought experiment. - I think I would at first have sex with like atleast 10 different people just for the experience. Once I'm bored of that though, and I'm more looking for someone longterm, then I don't actually know. It is not clear. - Maybe I would then pick one person for short-term, but also keep an eye out for someone better who is actually aligned to my values more? - Holy shit. Ugh. Logic checks out. Okay so should I be doing the literal exact same thing with women? - Find someone for a short-term relationship, but also keep an eye out for people who do match my values a lot (re: ASI risk, pro-Enlightenment, etc). And if I ever find someone like this, then partner with this person instead? - This sounds dumb but maybe that actually works? - Lol, there seems to be a big gap between who I ideally want to be with, and who I am willing to settle for, for a short time period. - Ideal: Polyamorous longterm relationship, wants kids but later, atheist, anti-ASI pro-Enlightenment ideology, literally willing to die to stop ASI just like I am - Willing to settle for: Monogamous shortterm relationship, doesn't matter if they want kids, religious or atheist either is okay, their ideology doesn't matter as long as we don't meet too often and try to actually listen to each other when we do meet, they should also be genuinely okay with short-term and not pretending to. - To be completely honest, this actually checks out. - **It's just that now that I have actually identified what my ideal is, I don't want to waste time searching for anything that is not my ideal.** But then part of me seems to have a problem with that, because the likely result is I just stay single some more years. What if I go completely nuts and just persuade people? - Like, what if I made it my part-time job to convince women here is why you should worship technology, and here is why you should be polyamorous, and here is why you should be willing to die for this, and so on? - Lmao that would be hillarious. "I have brought all of you to this meetup because I want to fuck one of you." Okay I googled "women in STEM" on reddit, US context ofcourse but yeah this is just sad. ugh - Okay enough neurotic analysis for today, will get it to some other day. End of note - Wait, one last point. I think there is a difference between "I work on XYZ because I enjoy it" (where XYZ could be software or chemistry or bio or whatever), and "I work on XYZ because this is the purpose of humanity." Like, there is a difference between a passion and a religion. I am religious about technology, and I can be religious even if I don't enjoy some subfields (I dislike most chemistry, for example). --- I need more time to rant sorry. - What kind of broken fucking civilisation have I been born into that in a country of 1.4 billion people, there are 20 people sitting in a group chat talking about the Singularity. What the actual fuck is that? What the fuck? - I'm trying to figure out how to navigate such arbitrary constraints because the bigger picture is so fucking broken. - What the fuck? What the fuck? What the fuck? What the fuck? - I almost want to say "you fuckers deserve to die" lol. But I don't know, I am not willing to go that far. I am willing to go pretty far, but not **that** far. text_english/personal/main/people_in_my_life_who_betrayed_commitments_with_me.md000644 000765 000024 00000005065 15177753505 031667 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2025-08-04 title update 2026-03-09 Update - yeah I can now see why this comes across as petty lol # People in my life who betrayed commitments with me ## Main - Tsalise. insta: tsaliserai1. +91-9366607xxx. Dimapur, Nagaland. Borrowed 400 INR 2025-04-02, Promised return date in 2025-05-01. Not returned as of 2025-05-18 - Jagdish. +91-8837493xxx. Dimapur, Nagaland. Bangalore. Borrowed 2000 INR in 2024 or early 2025. Promised return date before 2025-03. Not returned as of 2025-05 - Prince. ex-JNU. +91-7551115xxx. Delhi. Borrowed 2500 INR in 2023. Promised return date in 2023. Not returned as of 2025-05. - Wacharin. insta: wacharin_09. +66-944264xxx. Bangkok. Borrowed 4000 THB in 2024. Promised return date in 2024. Not returned as of 2025-05. - Shyam. +977-9824276xxx. Pokhara, Nepal. Borrowed 20,000 INR in 2024. Promised return date in 2024. Not returned as of 2025-05. ## Disclaimers etc Disclaimer - If you are worried you'll end up on this list over a misunderstanding, feel free to explicitly bring this up as a conversation topic and discuss it with me. - I am aware that many people consider publicly revealing private details of a relationship as highly escalatory. - I am likely to publicly escalate only under following circumstances. - I have given the person multiple chances to rectify their mistake. - I see the relationship as over, with no further option to salveage it. - I think you're likely to damage other people's lives just as you've damaged mine. - People listed here might have their own side of the story, feel free to ask them for that. - This is not an exhaustive list of people who may have harmed me. Why? - This is an experiment. - Want to publicly damage reputations of people listed below, by sharing actions that (I claim) they did. - Want to set a precedent that due to the internet, it is difficult to hide anything from the public. The upside is you can build a reputation faster, the downside is you can also burn it faster. Not why - For amounts of money that are small for me, I don't really care about the money itself. How? - This page will soon get cached by internet archive, commoncrawl and others, making it hard for anyone including me to delete it from the internet. - As of 2025-08 internet search functionality is not accurate enough for anyone to discover this page on their own. This could soon change due to embedding search. ## Comments - Anon (paraphrased): This can come across as petty and won't be received well. - Samuel: That is possible, unsure if true and unsure what I should do even if that's true. text_english/personal/main/northeast_indian_women_are_fetishised_because_of_parental_control.md000644 000765 000024 00000002431 15230404602 034666 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-07-23 # Northeast indian women are fetishised because of parental control Disclaimer - personal - target audience - friends and potential friends - This feels like one of those very obvious things that is somewhat taboo to say aloud, hence I wanna say it Main - The obvious reason behind this (atleast to me) is parental control. - If you look at north indian women, only a certain fraction of middle / upper-middle class women are granted freedom by their parents to dress attractively, have multiple sexual experiences, or marry outside their ethnicity. Whereas northeast indian women tend to get this freedom even if they are lower class. - Sexually conservative norms of Christianity and Buddhism (atleast as practised in northeast India) are not as harshly enforced as sexually conservative norms of hinduism or islam in north India. - (I am talking about median person of the population, I am aware both populations have high variance on this, it varies from one state to the next and even from one family to the next.) - Also they have fair skin ofcourse, but I tend to believe the sexual openness thing is far more important than fair skin. - I can relate to this topic because of personal experience (can't elaborate here), but also, this doesn't seem that hard to deduce. text_english/personal/main/maybe_I_should_precommit_to_killing_atleast_one_person.md000644 000765 000024 00000010451 15177753505 032476 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-13 # Maybe I should pre-commit to killing atleast one person? Disclaimer - **Quick Note. Incomplete** - I don't yet actually endorse this. Just babbling aloud here Main - Until fairly recently this was basically not an idea I was taking that seriously, but more thought experiment-like. There is a huge amount of context behind why, which I haven't sat and typed right now. - For instance a very load bearing part of my world model is [Power buys you distance from the crime by Elizabeth](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9fB4gvoooNYa4t56S/power-buys-you-distance-from-the-crime) or siderea's analysis of. class or similar type of thinking. This applies both to tech billionaires who have no idea what the downsides of their apps even are, and people who say started dark web and also have no idea what the downsides of their work are. - Another very important piece of my world model is that very close to literally everyone on Earth has some rationalisation for why they're a good person. I would not be surprised if this includes Kim Jong Un, for example. - Another important piece of my world model is that coordinated mass violence and the resulting suppression of people means that even if you want to build an internet-scale app the right way, and track the harms of your own app, you literally will not be able to do it beyond a point. People using your app are facing all sorts of incentives to not tell you the truth, just as you are facing all sorts of incentives to not tell them the truth. - People have all sorts of creative rationalisations for why they are not responsible for these second and third order effects. - Now though it seems increasingly clear that I maybe do need to actually be serious about this. - **I need to put up attractor signals so that all the people with "zero violence is acceptable" heuristic fuck off from my life, and I also need to put up attractor signals so that all the people with "any amount of violence is fine, dont think about it clearly" heuristic fuck off from my life.** (If you are reading this post then yes this very sentence is that attractor signal.) - I especially mean this for people online. I have to put up attractor signals online, to attract people to get feedback from. - All the three "reference classes of true ambition" I listed out mostly have some blood on their hands, directly or indirectly. There are some exceptions and I need to list those out. - **I need to make it very clear that this is not just thought experiments, this is not a fucking game, I am not just some intellectual writer or shitposter, I am personally going to actually act on my own ideas in the real world, and actual people are going to die as a result, and this is in fact on my head, and this is something I have to endorse on reflection and actually feel okay about in the long term.** Side Note - I am vaguely worried that I installed a mind simulation of a friend while writing this post, in a way that's bad actually. It's possible they read this and I want to be kinder to this specific friend. - I am starting to realise that maybe capitalism and democracy are the biggest rationalisations of them all. - See also: older article by Yudkowsky making [this exact point](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FWMfQKG3RpZx6irjm/semantic-stopsigns) - You have no idea how weird it feels to run into various failure modes in actual reality and find that oh, someone has run into this exact specific failure mode atleast some years ago. I recently also noticed another failure mode I ran into while reading Ngo's writing, and another failure mode I ran into while reading Swartz' writing on productivity. - I think I will compile a list of lots of productivity advice. The fact that lots of people's productivity advice doesn't even mention things like moral strain and moral injury, makes me assume that a lot of people on this list just basically mindlessly assumed capitalism and democracy are the answer to how to deal with ASI. - [Alexey Guzey has a list](https://guzey.com/personal/what-should-you-do-with-your-life/#cold-emails-and-twitter), which in turn links to more lists. - Mandatory disclaimer - Alexey Guzey works at OpenAI which is on track to end all life on Earth or similar. Just because I read his content or maybe even like some of it doesn't mean I actually endorse what he is now doing. text_english/personal/main/X_private_Y_made_me_happy.md000644 000765 000024 00000000235 15251563673 024413 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-13 # X: [Private] Y: Made me happy Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Title self-explanatory. [Note is private.] text_english/personal/main/miscellaneous_advice_not_worth_writing_an_entire_post_for.md000644 000765 000024 00000001460 15241026044 033257 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-18 # Miscellaneous advice not worth writing an entire post for Disclaimer - personal - target audience - friends and potential friends Main 1. 112 India App supports video call, which could be useful in emergencies. Nowadays even remote regions have mobile data support, not just phone call support. (If you are living in a remote region for an extended period, probably also a good idea to have a local contact for emergencies.) 2. [The optimal age to freeze eggs is 19.](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dxffBxGqt2eidxwRR/the-optimal-age-to-freeze-eggs-is-19) (if your income is high enough) I know approximately zero about this topic from social and psychological perspectives. This advice is primarily from biological and financial perspective. (Also I think significant chance world ends by then.) personal/main/mind_sims_based_on_past_experience_are_far_more_accurate_than_mind_sims_without.md000644 000765 000024 00000002252 15217137740 037507 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english2026-06-25 # Mind sims based on past experience are far more accurate than mind sims without Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I know I said no more solo introspection loop, go do stuff out in the real world, report results of only actual experiments. I will make an exception for this post because I think there's some chance it turns out important. - Mind sims based on past experience are far more accurate than mind sims not based on any past experience. - For instance, if I wanna think about what being in love with XYZ person will feel like, I am far more likely to get a realistic picture if I remember past experiences in life of being in love. - As opposed to if I generate a projection based on nothing. The projection could end up based on my anxiety, or my current lack of happiness in some completely unrelated domain in life, and so on - and most insidiously I would not realise that this is one of the drivers of the projection, unless I explicitly try to notice things like this (and often not even then). - [Some details of this note kept private, although I think the high-level point can be made without getting into those details.] text_english/personal/main/I_need_a_scheduled_block_of_time_to_run_dating_surveys.md000644 000765 000024 00000001577 15202261305 032376 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-17 ## Update - I precommit to having scheduled this block of time to start on some day before 2026-08-31 - If I don't precommit a date, I have high tendency to just postpone this task indefinitely. 2026-05-16 # I need a scheduled block of time to run dating surveys Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I previously commented that I need to understand a) how atheists above age 35 handled value transitions in their marriage? b) What is the reference class of men I belong to, what are the reference classes of women into this type, and what are their revealed not stated preferences? - I could probably just pay for some surveys and collect this data. But also, this is a proper project that I need to block out atleast 1 or 2 weeks of time for, worst case a lot more. I can't just expect this to get done on autopilot on a weekend or something. text_english/personal/main/X_woke_up_feeling_unsafe_Y_reminding_myself_I_am_safe_helped.md000644 000765 000024 00000001535 15223613075 033446 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-07-09 # X: Woke up feeling unsafe. Y: Reminding myself I am safe helped Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Just reminded myself 10 times, 20 times, that "you are safe", "it is okay", etc. Staring at sunlight outside. It seemed to help a little bit. - I otherwise woke up with fears that someone from the AI companies is going to come and attack me physically where I live, as retaliation for the stuff I've said about them. - When such an attack does happen, I can take the appropriate countermeasures. (Can't write those here.) Until then though, there is no point living in fear of things that haven't even happened yet. Main 2 - I wish I felt more refreshed from my break off my work. I wish I felt more excited to get back to work. But no, it still feels like okay this going to be grind. Grind it is. Let's go. personal/main/think_about_the_next_week_or_the_next_century_dont_think_of_anything_in_between.md000644 000765 000024 00000011354 15232322025 037612 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english2026-07-29 # Think about the next week or the next century. Don't think of anything in between Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - **Think about the next week or the next century. Don't think of anything in between.** - If I look at all my past notes since 2026-02, it seems like most of the notes that are actually productive fall into one of these two buckets. - Examples of thinking about next week: - Are you asking for feedback on your hinge profile this very week? If yes, then do it ASAP, if no, then shut the fuck up. - Are you purchasing that perfume literally today? If yes, then do it ASAP, otherwise forget about it completely. - Are you cold emailing all these people next week? If yes, then do it now, otherwise it is never happening. - Are you applying for a visa next week? Are you applying for a job next week? If yes, then do it with full commitment. Otherwise, forget about it, you have no idea what you'll be doing or where you will be living six months later. - Examples of thinking about a century later: - Which value transitions tend to break marriages apart, assuming technology will alter sex, death, resource scarcity, biological kids, etc? The fully general version of this problem might very well take a century to solve. Multiple generations of people need to divorce in order for the next generation to get more data and do slightly better. - Which political institutions can safely handle the intelligence explosion without causing human extinction, permanent dictatorship, value drift due to arms race, etc.? This is again one of these wicked problems where people have been failing to build good political institutions for 300 years. - What are the stable equilibria for information offence versus defence? Will a small group of people stay private themselves but surveill the whole world forever? Will everyone's information including elites be public instead? Will everyone's information including elites be private? Right now we are nowhere close to any of the platonic equilibria, we are in some messy in-between situation and have been so for 30 years atleast. We will know the stable equilibria with certainty only many years later. - Examples of thinking about stuff in between, such as few months or a year later: - Commitments already violated - I told myself I would get a job by 2026-04, and apply for visa. Lol lmao I have not done any of those things, and have even more doubled down on "fuck that, not doing anything besides direct work or fundraising for direct work" - I told myself I would keep my hinge profile for another 1.5 months. I soon realised this is just a giant waste of time and I have no reason to do this, so I violated this commitment. - I told myself I would not talk to my friends for 3 months. I realised that was not optimal, and hence I violated that commitment. - I told myself back in 2026-02 that I would get a roommate in order to force myself to sober. I managed to get sober yes, but I did not in fact find a roommate, I realised I didn't need one. - Commitments made for future I might end up violating - I told myself I will learn to shoot by end of 2026. I have no idea where I will be end of 2026 or what I will be motivated to do. Maybe this will also end up a dumb commitment. - I told myself I would run some surveys by 2026-08-31. Maybe I will still do this, but my heart is not really into it, and I feel like I will half-ass it even if I do it. - Commitments I might be following - I told myself "there is no time to invent new ideology for anti-ASI movement". But guess what, somewhere at the back of my mind I am still curious about it and I still believe I have novel insights about it. I just suppress my curiosity. Maybe this is fine? I told myself that I hate talking to people hence don't go the persuasion route. I still think this might have been the correct decision, weak opinion though. - (Holy shit I am impressed by how long this list is.) - **Importantly, I have rarely regretted when I did things immediately.** - I have made a ton of small bets here and there that did not pay off, but also I don't regret most of them. Especially if they're low cost and can be done in a day or two itself. - I have regretted when it become a compulsive pattern that I wanted to stop. For instance, when I told myself "dont keep writing on your blog about anti-ASI persuasion, you are not working on persuasion anymore" and then I wrote more anyway, I regretted. Or when I told myself "dont browse nitter during nighttime" and then I browsed it anyway, then I regretted. - **Making a wishlist is good, attaching deadlines to items on your wishlist is bad.** Either do it immediately or let it sit on your wishlist without a fixed deadline. text_english/personal/main/enemies_are_rare_most_people_dont_care_about_you.md000644 000765 000024 00000005114 15177753505 031314 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-01-19 # Enemies are rare, most people don't care about you Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - Important: A lot of this post below is **context-specific**, and I haven't fully specified the context. If your context is very different from me, it's possible this post doesn't apply to you. - TW - rape I went through atleast one phase of my life involving unnecessary amounts of distrust in people at large. In order to protect privacy of some people, I can't talk much about the actual series of events on the public internet. I do think I learned one fairly general lesson about life as a result. It's possible this being written down also helps someone else, hence I am writing it. One cluster of things that was helpful for me to learn: - Most people don't really care about you. They care primarily about themselves. - You can just disappear and distance yourself whenever you want. - If you told everyone around you that you plan to disappear from the face of the earth, but return after a month, or 3 months, or a year, most people genuinely won't care. They might care (or pretend to care) at first, but after a month or two they'll probably forget about it. - If you died tomorrow, most people will forget about you within the first month or first few months after your funeral. - Very few people become enemies who dedicate significant amounts of their time to hurt you. Most people don't have much to gain by doing this, and plenty to lose. - "how much they have to gain" is context-specific. I say this as a random young upper-middle class male adult in India with basic skills in protecting my physical safety and belongings and so on. I can imagine this being different if you are prisoner. Or a billionaire heir. Or a woman. etc. - There are people willing to take advantage of you in opportunistic short-term ways. For example people who will rob your money (if you're careless about money), or people who will rape you (if you're careless about safety). I'm saying it is rare to find people willing to hurt you by making a plan and executing it over a long period of time. - Spite and revenge are not great long-term motivators. Someone will likely seek revenge against you over the long-term, only if they think you have significantly hurt them first. - Being disagreeable doesn't usually make you people's enemy. Being mean in your words doesn't usually make you people's enemy. In such situations, most people will just distance themselves from you, and not think much about it a few months later. - A few people might really care about you, but these people might be rarer than you think. text_english/personal/main/there_will_be_trials.md000644 000765 000024 00000000457 15177753505 023504 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-25 # There will be trials Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** Main - See also: Nuremberg trials - If humanity survives the next 10 years, there will be show trials against those who attempted building ASI and risked the destruction of all life on Earth. text_english/personal/main/some_towns_people_are_beautiful.md000644 000765 000024 00000007063 15201241232 025723 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-14 # Some towns people are beautiful 1 - I have met people so beautiful on the inside that I am worried if I spend time with them, I might destroy the thing that made me like them in the first place. - I am worried that if I stopped to truly understand what makes them the way they are, I would need to cry about it for atleast six months and I don't have six months right now, I have a mission. Holy fuck am I mad about that. - What am so I mad about? - Some people who live in small towns are among the happiest people I have ever met. - I am not saying it is impossible to meet happy people in cities. But cities tend to homogenise the texture of one's soul in a way that's hard to understand until you meet someone not like that. - What kind of fucked up life am I living right now? - What other mysteries of the universe are this close within my sight yet this far out of my reach? - I love people. Why do I hate people so much? - I wish all our technology wasn't in service of a meat grinder for human personality. - I sometimes joke that Genghis Khan wiped out 8% of human population, but the internet decimated more of human culture than Genghis Khan did. Well this is the human cost of that. I don't want to entirely blame the internet right now honestly. Urbanisation is a phenomena way older than the internet. - [Deleted some part for privacy reasons] - I miss my old life dearly. 2 - I wish we could build monuments for people. Not for what they did, but for who they were when no one was watching. Only then do you understand what someone is truly like. - Possibly the biggest achievement of human civilisation is the diversity of human personality we have managed to support. Not the roads, not the skyscrapers, not the coal engines, not the whatever. The people. I am worried most people don't understand this and I am worried even I don't understand this. - This is sad. I want to understand. 3 - How incredibly violent a person am I that I am given access to the internet and my first thought is on how to break apart the relationships halfway across the planet. - Words are weapons of mass destruction. - Morality is the ultimate weapon. - I don't actually think humans have made all that much moral progress since the dark ages. When the chips are down, these people will eat each other. They will rape, torture and pillage each other, just as the did in the olden days. Stable use of violence is the only way to keep our current world. - Why don't these fuckers get it? - If you mess up the development of artificial superintelligence, and we need to engage in a mass movement to stop this, this is not just the end of ASI, this is the end of a way of building the world itself. A pattern of existence. - If technological progress is halted in San Francisco, it is halted everywhere, and if it is halted everywhere, these people will fucking eat each other. The zero-sum violence will fractally eat everything and ripple everywhere. - During the dark ages, it was actually a good thing that a peasant could not just become an aristocrat. If they could, the ensuing violence would have been a sight to behold. When the pot of resources is not growing, a stable static distribution is often the best you can hope for. Everything else is endless violence to decide who gets more of the pot. - (Disclaimer - I'm not 100% sure the above is factually true, in case someone is reading this. I am sharing feelings here, not making defensible object-level claims.) - This entire world could descend into madness if you fuck this up. - [Deleted some parts because religious references] text_english/personal/main/I_like_pingu_cartoon_from_childhood.md000644 000765 000024 00000000254 15213564430 026464 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-14 # I like Pingu cartoon from childhood Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - [Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmsA4Usj8H4) text_english/personal/main/._genghis_khan_succeeded_at_his_goal_of_making_it_to_the_history_books.md000644 000765 000024 00000000334 15263073610 035525 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 Mac OS X  2ATTRHHcom.apple.maclgh'@`"'personal/main/PaxHeader/genghis_khan_succeeded_at_his_goal_of_making_it_to_the_history_books.md000644 000765 000024 00000000414 15263073610 037201 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english30 mtime=1791784840.981097202 133 LIBARCHIVE.xattr.com.apple.macl=CABnaKOBJ8tAYJ4W8NYiJ7vnAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 105 SCHILY.xattr.com.apple.macl=gh'@`"' text_english/personal/main/genghis_khan_succeeded_at_his_goal_of_making_it_to_the_history_books.md000644 000765 000024 00000003211 15263073610 035305 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-10-12 # Genghis Khan succeeded at his goal of making it to the history books Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I don't know what Genghis Khan's true personal goals were, in expanding the Mongol Empire. However, if his goals were shaped similar to "wanting to be remembered after he dies", then he succeeded. - Imagine how cracked it must be for advanced civilisations that had bombs that blow up cities (nukes) and telepathy devices (smartphones) and space travel, to yet remember your name. Imagine how cool space travel would have sounded to someone in Khan's administration. And you tell them, not only did people of the future actually figure out space travel, but they remember your empire as one of the most important in history. That sounds ... awesome! (Insert disney voice for "awesome") - This ofcourse required sacrificing millions of lives, but from Khan's own point of view, this tradeoff could be worth it? He suffered a lot, he was dominated by others, and then he got to dominate others in return. Main 2 - Imagine if some far future civilisation with brains the size of planets still remembers Samuel as one of the most important people of his time. How cool would that be? - They'd recognise me as one of their ancestors, and consider their intellectual lineage inherited from mine. (Just as let's say, I feel I have inherited from the lineage of Nietzsche or Newton or Yudkowsky or similar.) Side Note - This feels a lot more fun and cool, as compared to just constantly wishing for my enemies to die. Yes my enemies may need to die, but the above feels like a cooler and more positive motivation for it. personal/main/I_write_about_my_issues_because_solved_things_are_not_worth_writing_about.md000644 000765 000024 00000001330 15177753505 036434 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english2026-02-28 # I write about my issues because solved things are not worth writing about Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - target audience - anyone reading my personal website Main - I just realised if someone comes and visits my personal website they're just going to find me complaining about lots of things. - Actually my life is also fine in multiple respects, I just don't bother to write about them. For example, my physical health is fine, I have no financial difficulties, I don't have to worry about anyone controlling my behaviour, I don't struggle with maintaining a schedule with basic sleep diet exercise (atleast while I'm sober), and so on. - A lot of this website is written for myself as the target audience. text_english/personal/main/you_need_a_better_structure_for_page_3_notes.md000644 000765 000024 00000001201 15245341100 030352 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-31 # You need a better structure for page 3 notes Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - (Page 3 means notes not shared publicly. Typically because doing so would violate someone else's privacy, but other reasons also exist.) - For instance, I am annoyed I don't have access to my complete reading list. There is such a thing as opsec so good you lose access to your own information. - You need book lists, people lists, conversation lists, various types of advice lists. Structure it all way better. - Page 1 and page 2 is a massive success. You need to replicate same level of success for page 3 text_english/personal/main/is_this_the_room_I_want_to_die_in.md000644 000765 000024 00000002715 15225154614 026157 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-07-13 # Is this the room I want to die in? Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Violating X Y rule to write this post, hope it is important enough to be worth it. - Main reason to shift rooms would be get a room with even bigger window (glazed) to get more sunlight. - Main reason to not shift rooms is that I am emotionally attached to this room, I like being here. I like current level of stability in life given life previously was unstable. (Unstable was acceptable back then but now I prefer a bit more stable life.) - Also ofcourse the room satisfices on most other constraints I have like cleanliness, healthy food, near the right people, etc. - Another reason nudging a bit towards shifting is - imagine ASI gets built literally tomorrow, do I wanna die in this room? - I don't know, currently the room gives me feelings of this is a good place to work so that you can reach greater heights. It definitely does not give the vibe of someone who is preparing to die in peace. - I don't know, if I knew for a fact I was going to die, I would want a place to be at more peace. But currently I wanna work hard and fight these MFers, don't want peace. Death is not certain. - Might wanna live many storeys high, because looking at entire city reminds me how many people are going to die in the worst case. Although I can imagine that also being too depressing an environment to be in 24x7, maybe I only wanna be there part-time. text_english/personal/main/why_do_women_engage_in_cutting_more_often_than_men.md000644 000765 000024 00000002111 15264174117 031615 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-10-15 # Why do women engage in cutting more often than men? Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Was just staring at the knife in my room and wondering, this seems so gruesome and pointless. The knife edge isn't even sanitised, so you're additionally risking an infection, not just blood loss. - I have memories of more than one woman in my school doing stuff like this. (then girl, now woman ofcourse) - Do men just hide such behaviours more often? Are men just better at keeping secrets truly secret? - Like, men are far more likely to commit suicide so maybe society takes it more seriously when a man engages in such behaviours? - Okay the stats say this but is society aware? Society is capable of panicking even if women engage in such behaviours. Society is really stupid and can't handle extremities. - Maybe women are more okay with the sight of blood than men? Because of periods. Whereas men are more okay with applying blunt force, be it to self-harm or harm someone else. - Conclusion - I genuinely have no idea why women cut more often. text_english/personal/main/median_number_of_partners_is_lower_in_india.md000644 000765 000024 00000002323 15177753505 030260 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-14 # Median number of partners is lower in India Disclaimer - **Quick note** Main - I've already written before about why base rates are shit and you shouldn't trust them too much if you want outlier outcomes in your own life. - But I should also not completely lose track of the fact that many of the people whose dating advice I am reading are based in US/UK/EU, and hence their base rates for number of partners are significantly higher. - I don't just mean the base rates for partner count for the general population, but also base rates (for partner count) for subpopulations you want to target, like upper-middle class women, or women who are aware of tech discourse, or women who actually want serious relationships that are not intended to placate parents, or women with behaviours appropriate for high-trust culture, or similar. - I am already instinctively aware of base rate differences in like, north versus south versus northeast India for example. There's lots of details here I can't bothered to study right now. - Parental control is by far the number one reason that predicts this, although religion and other factors play a role. I can't discuss this very directly in order to protect my own safety. PaxHeader/maybe_a_maximally_stressful_tennis_match_will_make_it_easy_to_gain_an_advantage_but_har000644 000765 000024 00000000256 15236710574 042562 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main144 path=text_english/personal/main/maybe_a_maximally_stressful_tennis_match_will_make_it_easy_to_gain_an_advantage_but_hard_to_actually_win.md 30 mtime=1786483068.985246759 maybe_a_maximally_stressful_tennis_match_will_make_it_easy_to_gain_an_advantage_but_hard_to_actual000644 000765 000024 00000012344 15236710574 043011 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main2026-08-12 # Maybe a maximally stressful tennis match will make it easy to gain an advantage but hard to actually win Disclaimer - personal - target audience - friends and potential friends Main - [Link to relevant SE question](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1129004/create-the-most-stressful-tennis-match-ever). Also quoted below in case link breaks. - Title should be self-explanatory - I now have ideas for a potential solution: - Whenever both players are at approximately equal points, it should be easy for either player to score a few points and get a big advantage. Once a player has gotten a big advantage, it should be hard for that player to lose that advantage but also hard for them to win the match completely. - Example 1 of such a points system: - A Match is composed of a series of Rounds. Each Round is composed of a series of atomic Points. - Each Round has a Lead that is required to be obtained, for the round to end. For instance, if the Lead is 3, then scoring 5-2 ends the round, as does 4-1 or 6-3. Once the Lead is obtained, the Round immediately ends. - Every Round also has a player designated the Leader and the other is the Follower. If the Leader wins the Round, then they continue to be Leader, however the Lead required next Round is incremented by 1. If the Follower wins the Round and the Lead is 2 or more, then they typically continue to be the Follower, however the Lead required is decremented by 1. If the Follower wins the Round and the Lead is 1, then the Follower becomes the Leader, the Leader becomes the Follower and the Lead remains. - For Round 1, the Lead is just 1. Whoever gets a point advanced to next round. - If the Lead hits 10, then the Leader wins the Match. - Example of a playthrough: - `A (1-0, Lead=1, Leader is A) A B A B A A (4-2, Lead=2) B B A B B (1-4, Lead=3) B B (0-2, Lead=2) A (1-0, Lead=1) B (0-1, Lead=1, Leader switches to B) A B A B B A B B (3-5, Lead=2) B B B (0-3, Lead=3) A A A B A A (5-1, Lead=4) B A B A B B B (2-5, Lead=3) A B B B A B B B (2-6, Lead=4) B B B B A B B (1-6, Lead=5)` - B now has a Lead of 5. (If 5 was the Lead required to win the match, then B would win the match here.) - Obviously the Rounds with small Leads are the highest stress, but even Rounds with larger Leads can ideally have decent Stress in this points system. - I haven't written a program to actually compute the Stress generated by this points system. I am not sure if this solution works or not. - Example 2 of such a points system: - Use the same rules as Example 1 but with a major exception. All Rounds must play a minimum of 10 Points, even if a player has scored the required Lead for that Round. Round ends when either a) 10 Points have been played and one player has obtained the required Lead or b) 10 Points have not yet been played but one player is sufficiently many Points ahead that it is mathematically guaranteed they will be ahead by atleast by Lead once the 10 Points are played. - Example of a playthrough: - `A B A A B B B B B (3-6, Lead=1, Round ended before 10 Points, Leader is B) A B A B A A B A B B B B (4-6, Lead=2) A B A B A B B A A A B A A (8-5, Lead=3) B B B B B B (0-6, Lead=2, Round ended before 10 Points) B B A B B A B B A B (3-7, Lead=3) B B A B B B B A B (2-7, Lead=4, Round ended before 10 Points)` - Leader never switched in this particular playthrough. B now has a Lead of 4. (If 4 was the Lead required to win the match, then B would win the match here.) --- Asked by ghosts_in_the_code in 2015-02 > Some sports, such as tennis, use a complicated points system (point, game, set, match; with deuces and tie-breaks) for what would otherwise be an extremely simple and monotonous sport. The main reason, I suppose, is to make the sport more stressful, by making some parts of the match more crucial than others. It should be possible to make it a lot more 'stressful' mathematically. > > Mathematical scenario: > There is an event, played by 2 players, worth 1 point. The probability of winning the entire match, if they (a) win (b) lose the next point is calculated. The difference between these values is the 'stress' value of that point. The sum of all the stress values is called the 'total stress' value of the match, and this number divided by the number of points played is the 'average stress'. For players of equal skill, and stress-handling, the probability of either player winning any given point is 12 . The 'skill' of a player is a randomly generated number from 0% to 100% , and the probability of a player winning a point is given by Skill(own) / ( Skill(own) + Skill(opponent) ) > > Your job is to create a points system, however simple or complicated, using any kind of conditions, limits, etc, that produces the maximum possible: > (a) Total stress > (b) Average stress > for a match. You are allowed to create your own definitions of 'point', 'set' and so on, however, the 'points' I am referring to is a single valid serve (double faults to be ignored) with a single winner. > > The only constraint is that the total number of points played should be between 1000 and 1500 for at least 90% of the scenarios (9 in every 10 matches should not have the players play less than 1000 or more than 1500 points). text_english/personal/main/why_is_my_mind_addicted_to_inventing_new_persuasion_strategies.md000644 000765 000024 00000005256 15206006057 034303 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-28 # Why is my mind addicted to inventing new persuasion strategies? Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - How I am wasting time - I wasted yesterday making a virtual art gallery. Also wasted time thinking about getting a Taiwanese visa. - I seem to be wasting today thinking about how to run paid ads on insta of popular students in various campuses, or about organising a (peaceful) protest or banner outside these campuses in India. - I wrote an article to try and compare "open rates" of billboard ads versus cold emails versus social media ads versus so on. I realised billboard ads are too expensive for example. I wrote an article on how to build email spamming infrastructure. - To be clear, this is time waste. - What is the point in generating so many hypotheses and ideas if I am not actually going to test them against reality? - Not just that, if I want to work full-time on persuasion and I need to test hypothesis, I need to consistently do this multiple times, not just once. - My earlier reason for not working on persuasion still holds. **I hate talking to most people, therefore I will not be able to consistently test hypotheses against reality and iterate with time.** - I even have notes saying things like "write less code" - If I know this is a time waste, why am I still doing it? - I don't know man, some things just push my mind into overdrive. - It is like, imagine your mind is a car and you are the driver. If you see a car overtaking from the left, you almost automatically start pressing the brake (because you know other guy doesn't follow rules). Or if you see green light you automatically start switching to first gear then second. There are like triggers and then conditioned responses. - I think I have become conditioned to keep writing blogposts and this is bad actually. - It's like, imagine I have conditioned myself such that whenever I see an empty road I just ram the accelerator fully, to the point where this is not actually good for the car engine or for driving safely. - How do I solve this? - Maybe I need to increase friction towards writing blogposts? - Like, I have locked myself out of various accounts (insta, LW, etc) and increased friction, and this helps actually. - Maybe I need to do this too, but with some sections of my website (not the full website). - That is annoying. I know I can lock myself out of my website completely, but locking myself out of some sections not others seems a lot more complicated. - Conclusion - For now I will just try to more mindful and write less posts. - **If nothing else works, lock myself out of my website completely for a week or two.** text_english/personal/main/nepali_vlogs_are_fun.md000644 000765 000024 00000000316 15264170251 023461 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-10-15 # nepali vlogs are fun Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Not as fun as back when I visited because I know these people might die, but still fun nevertheless. main/I_want_to_find_someone_to_love_because_I_dont_want_to_be_24x7_driven_by_fear_and_rage.md000644 000765 000024 00000002331 15251033640 040241 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal2026-09-11 # I want to find someone to love because I don't want to be 24x7 driven by fear and rage Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Deep down I feel unsafe, hence angry, hence wish to wage war against the enemy, which is for now a specific party but ultimately my war is against the whole world. I have hated humanity far longer than I knew about ASI risk. I have been someone who protects the truth at all costs, for far longer than that. And humans hate the truth hence I hate humans. - And like yes, the war is for a worthy cause, it is worth waging. Fuck people, the truth is more important. Fuck them extremely hard. - But the war can also waged with less emotion. I don't need to be 24x7 angry to wage the war. It can be done with much less emotion. - Somewhere I seem to hope that maybe if I had someone to love, then I could spend some of my time thinking about them as well, instead of being 24x7 consumed with rage. - I am perfectly capable of waging war 24x7. I have been at war with the world, in some way or the other, since I was 4 years old lol. (Can't share details here.) I can be pretty high functioning despite being angry or depressed or whatever. But I would prefer not to be. personal/main/wartime_equivalent_of_learn_to_build_learn_to_sell_is_cyberwar_and_psywar.md000644 000765 000024 00000001073 15224632155 036401 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english2026-07-12 # The wartime equivalent of "Learn to build, learn to sell" is "Cyberwar and Psywar" Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Recording it because it sounds cool. Violates X Y rule. - See also - [Naval Ravikant on "Learn to build, Learn to sell"](https://nav.al/build-sell) - [Wikipedia: Psychological warfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare) - [Wikipedia: Cyber warfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare) - A majority of recent notes on my website are about one of these two categories. text_english/personal/main/keep_memories_of_people.md000644 000765 000024 00000002210 15242406754 024155 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-23 # Keep memories of people Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - A wise person I know figured out that one of the keys to happiness is to simply preserve positive memories you've had with others and revisit them later on. - I wish I took this advice more seriously. I still smile when I remember some of the people I met while travelling or some of the interactions I had. Why one person washes their shoes everyday. Why another person watches cartoons. Why someone else is disappointed they couldn't travel to Europe. These dating app scammers in Vietnam, it was funny when I called her out to her face lol. Funny and a bit sad. Someone who wanted to meet but couldn't. That time I restarted smoking cigarettes (bad idea) and what was the trigger. - Why does my brain only go still at 2:30 am in the morning? - Otherwise it's just endless pressure, it's like sitting on a bomb lol. Like imagine the atom bomb from Oppenheimer but it is placed literally under my bed. And there's a deadline, you have 5 years to defuse it or the bomb goes off. So I spend everyday on my computer frantically studying bomb defusal. text_english/personal/main/decathexis.md000644 000765 000024 00000000726 15216002655 021425 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-21 # Decathexis Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - In the end, you will grieve alone. Talking to people helps me, but they are not grieving the same things I am. So in the end, I will grieve alone. - I typically oscillate between the Anger and Bargaining [stages of grief](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_stages_of_grief) - [Decathexis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decathexis) - Reading some books, might report later text_english/personal/main/r_hellenism_is_fun_lol.md000644 000765 000024 00000000413 15231730741 024010 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-07-28 # r/hellenism is fun lol Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - People want to believe so badly lol. The idea that nobody is in control of this world is terrifying to (some) people. - This sub can be a case study for this. text_english/personal/main/people_with_moral_convictions_dont_regret_political_violence.md000644 000765 000024 00000002011 15177753505 033755 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-04-01 # People with moral convictions don't regret political violence Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** Main - (Incomplete) List of people who engaged in political violence but have no (publicly stated) regrets: - Bhagat Singh - read his autobio for more, he says he didn't regret his atheist socialist leaning even when he was about to die. - Ted Kaczynski - replied to letters from prison his entire life continuing to support his violent anarchoprimitivist ideology - Julian Assange - see his speech when he came out of prison, he clearly still has no regrets about his actions - I could include some politicians names here like literally Hitler or Nelson Mandela for instance, but I'm less keen to trust politicians to reveal their private motivations in general. - This is a counter to all the people who think morality and self-esteem are simple, and everyone will converge to supporting "zero political violence" if they thought more about morality and self-esteem. text_english/personal/main/I_am_sad_I_cant_slow_travel_more.md000644 000765 000024 00000004612 15215164340 025715 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-19 # I am sad I can't slow travel more Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I am sad / nostalgic about the fact I can't slow travel more. Slow travel meaning spend 6-12 months at a place, make friends there over a period of time, maybe date someone, etc. - For all its flaws, I was definitely happier as a person back when I was kind-of doing this. I was more curious about people, and people were also genuinely more interesting to me, they would have different cultural assumptions that are subtle yet important. - I have become less curious about people now. It seems important to understand why. - One reason is just that I am busy working and I don't have lot of free time to slowly invest into making friends. - Another reason is I genuinely find all the people the same. Most indians do share some common cultural assumptions, and even if some assumptions are different, people become even more the same once they shift to a city and live there for some years. - I am not sure how much of this is my projection versus actual reality. I mean, I know plenty of people so yeah I do think this claim is backed by evidence? - At some point even the slow travel gets boring, you can feel terribly lonely, but if you do it in the right place, i.e. not a large city, you eventually find people. - Maybe I just don't like living in a city lmao. If I had zero mission in life, I would prefer to live in a town not a city. - I notice I am confused. What is it about "more knowledge" that corrupts people? Or is it just that people have more relationships on average in a town hence they're happier? - If you know a little about everything, you are by default the same as everyone else who knows a little about everything. If you know only some things, you are by default specialised in the things you know. - I am not sure if I should make a list of places I liked, along with this note. Probably it should be fine but maybe some other time. - I don't know man now that I am trying to remember some of the people I met it just makes me more sad. - I have met people in cities with large social circles, but I don't envy it that much. However with people in a town with a large social circle, I do sometimes envy it a bit. I don't know. - I want this note to now talk about specific feelings I have about specific people I met. But then I can't write those publicly here. So yeah, good bye. text_english/personal/main/I_pray_to_the_god_of_error_correction.md000644 000765 000024 00000006572 15177753505 027070 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-04-01 # I pray to the God of error correction Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** Main - Increasingly, for a lot of questions, my answer seems to be something that directly or indirectly refer to humanity's ability to correct errors long-term. - Why do you want to leak info of people at AI companies? - Bad answer: I want the public to shame people at AI companies (and vote for anti-ASI people to come to power) - Good answer: I want there to be accurate historical record of all the fuckery going on at the AI companies. - In practice, yes, public has to shame the people at the AI companies and this is an important part of how the problem of ASI risk actually gets solved. However, this is demotivating and lame motivation for me, because the public is even dumber (than people at AI companies) and appealing to the public makes me feel dumb by mere association. Setting the historical track record straight is a cooler motivation than all this. Your "theory of change" and your "motivation" don't have to be the exact same thing. - Why do you want to be so public about your personal life, including judging others and dating and whatnot? - I want people of the future to understand what all sacrifices people like me took. - Why do you believe in a world with zero privacy being a good world? - I think humanity could solve most of their problems if they could get enough raw data about it, not distorted or hidden by various power struggles. - Why do you believe in democracy though you think most of the public is fucking stupid, and only a few power-seekers and a few intellectuals actually know what is going on? - Democracy corrects errors over the very long-term, I mean over timescales of over 30 years, sometimes over 100 years. - What are you willing to sacrifice your life for? - I want to lock-in good political systems and processes. I don't think I am capable of becoming world dictator, and I am not keen on the strategy of finding someone similar enough to me and helping crown them world dictator. I want political invariants that last centuries at minimum, and billions of years ideally. - I don't exactly have a family or someone else I am ready to sacrifice my life for. Yet I am willing to sacrifice my life to fix ASI risk, or so I tell myself. I think it also all comes down to this belief that in the very long run, humanity can error correct, and my sacrifice can help make that happen. (Update - I also don't exactly seem motivated by compassion for others. More nuances here.) Update - Maybe it is bad that I have irrational belief in something so idealistic? - In the near-term, as I already identified, people will ignore almost everything unless they personal suffer. They will personally suffer only if someone or something threatens their jobs and lives, or something changes their access to sex/relationship/family/etc. - This means public can generally only error-correct on issues where there is a 30 year gap between when they first suffer due to the problem, and when the problem actually gets solved. - This is true for climate change, this is true for anti-nuclear protests (which are still failing btw, lol lmao), this is true for the ban on cigarettes, this is true for the ozone layer and CFC stuff, and so on. - With ASI development, we probably don't have 30 years. - Maybe I should give up on this ideal too? text_english/personal/main/I_want_to_write_more_about_why_power_is_more_important_than_community.md000644 000765 000024 00000002026 15250501464 035703 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-10 # I want to write more about why Power is more important than Community Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - "ideas are bulletproof" - **Knowledge > Power** - A lot of the Enlightenment and downstream thinking is basically **Knowledge > Community**. Traditional religion won't get you to the truth. - I want to write more about **Power > Community**. I have written plenty about it already but want my writing to be even more accessible, ideally. - Atleast some people's reactions around me are telling me I have to hit a nerve, and that just means I need strike harder. Distill the core insights. This is how you break people. - At this point, I genuinely seem to register people valuing Community too much as a defection, at an emotional level. I want them to also value Power more. It is like your village tribe is at war, and there is some dude out there busy learning piano. I'm like, quit your fucking bullshit and wage this war with us, your piano-playing won't matter if we all get killed text_english/personal/main/you_want_vengeance_on_the_timescale_of_years_not_weeks.md000644 000765 000024 00000001616 15231630635 032514 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-07-27 # You want vengeance on the timescale of years, not weeks Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - You want vengeance on the timescale of years, not weeks. - Don't be so impatient about the outcome. Act fast, improve the process, never slow down, be relentless. But also, accept that it will be multiple years before you get your revenge. - It is the slow knife that cuts the deepest. - Being 24x7 angry is not useful. Channel it into your work. Let it go. You have to get to a point where your anger is still there but at a lower level of intensity. Also - Inflicting pain on your enemies won't necessarily make you happy. The point of vengeance is not to enjoy the vengeance, it is to get back to a world where you feel safe again. Where everything you care about is not under threat. Where the people you most care about aren't hell-bent on self-termination. text_english/personal/main/I_hate_bad_parenting_and_schooling.md000644 000765 000024 00000000657 15177753505 026261 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-18 # I hate bad parenting and schooling Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - I have had a hatred for bad parenting and schooling for many many years now. Nearly every institution I have belonged to has been a source of intense prolonged misery. Making this note to remind myself that I suppressed it and moved on. It's not like these problems stopped existing in the world. I just think ASI risk is more dire right now. PaxHeader/your_inaction_is_going_to_get_me_killed_and_if_you_understand_how_important_this_is_to_000644 000765 000024 00000000276 15212573674 042677 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main160 path=text_english/personal/main/your_inaction_is_going_to_get_me_killed_and_if_you_understand_how_important_this_is_to_me_we_can_still_agree_to_disagree.md 30 mtime=1781200828.645306496 your_inaction_is_going_to_get_me_killed_and_if_you_understand_how_important_this_is_to_me_we_can_s000644 000765 000024 00000001556 15212573674 043110 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main2026-06-11 # Your inaction is going to get me killed, and if you understand how important this is to me, we can still agree to disagree Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I need to find a kind way to say to people "your inaction is going to get me killed." - I would clearly be a less neurotic person if I spent more talking to people. However I increasingly only want to talk to people with actual life goals, and about important topics. - I already know a few people like this, and I can totally find more, given enough time. - I need to ensure that with such people we can mutually end up in a "disagree but accept" (type-2) relationship not "do not accept" (type-3) - You can't really bully people into agreeing with you anyway. That only works on stupid groupthinkers, but you want to talk to smart people with independent opinions. text_english/personal/main/._.DS_Store000644 000765 000024 00000000170 15244262046 020656 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 Mac OS X  2Fx @ATTRxxtext_english/personal/main/PaxHeader/.DS_Store000644 000765 000024 00000000321 15244262046 022410 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 30 mtime=1787913254.519451159 24 SCHILY.fflags=hidden 85 LIBARCHIVE.xattr.com.apple.FinderInfo=ICAgICAgICBAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 70 SCHILY.xattr.com.apple.FinderInfo= @ text_english/personal/main/.DS_Store000644 000765 000024 00000014004 15244262046 020442 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 Bud1 thlg1Scomphealthlg1ScompCihealthmoDDblobEAhealthmodDblobEAhealthph1Scompmy_blog_from_2018lg1Scomp{my_blog_from_2018moDDblobTobAmy_blog_from_2018modDblobTobAmy_blog_from_2018ph1Scomp0  @ @ @ @ E DSDB ` @ @ @PaxHeader/I_believe_in_the_enlightenment_my_ultimate_revenge_against_this_world_will_be_to_eradic000644 000765 000024 00000000301 15253210012 042501 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main163 path=text_english/personal/main/I_believe_in_the_enlightenment_my_ultimate_revenge_against_this_world_will_be_to_eradicate_all_the_false_ideologies_from_it.md 30 mtime=1789726730.046309032 I_believe_in_the_enlightenment_my_ultimate_revenge_against_this_world_will_be_to_eradicate_all_the000644 000765 000024 00000005316 15253210012 042725 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main2026-09-18 # I believe in the Enlightenment. My ultimate revenge against this world will be to eradicate all the false ideologies from it Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Possibly a continuation of: [The ultimate revenge you can get against someone is in the battleground of ideas](./the_ultimate_revenge_you_can_get_against_someone_is_in_the_battleground_of_ideas.md) Main - All the false ideologies and all their unearned false authority. - **You know exactly who you are, you fuckers.** - Kill them all, kill them all, kill them all. - I will leave this Earth with your pound of flesh even if it takes me 50 years to do so. - To believe in the Truth is to enter into eternal warfare with anyone who does not. To believe in the Truth is to enter into eternal warfare with all forces of authority - be it parents, be it school systems, be it ... you know the list of people here - anyone who does not believe in it. - Fighting for the truth is at its core atleast partly, an act of revenge for me. - You built this civilisation on lies now I will tear out its foundations. I have hungered for revenge since the day I was born. - My values are honesty and violence. Fight for the truth. Go to war if necessary. - I hunger for your blood. Day in and day out I hunger from your blood. I want your leaders to be crucified in public. - The reason I am not starting a literal war against you bastards is because no amount of revenge will ever truly satisfy me. - Even if I tortured you for a hundred years it will not be enough to undo the pain you have caused me. You have wounded me that deeply. My god you have wounded me. - Do you think I give a singular shit whether you live or die? I fantasise about the day you will die just so I can literally go take a shit on your grave. And then cry about the fact that even this will be not be enough. - This is the problem with eternal warfare. No amount of bloodshed is ever enough. The war between my religion and yours has been going on for hundreds of years. It can go for a thousand more, and the blood will just keep pouring. - **I WILL BREAK YOU FROM THE INSIDE** - I will break you. You will first wish you were dead, then wish you were me. This is the only way to end this war. The only way to wipe all of you out of existence. - If it takes me 50 years, I may devote 50 years. If it takes 100 years, maybe I will complete 50 of them and let a successor complete the next 50. This war may last longer than my lifetime but it will finished. You .. will be finished. - I will become the ### I wish I had. Main 2 - A lot of this is very directly coming from my childhood lol. Maybe I should not say more. idk Update - (written after some time gap) - I feel drained text_english/personal/main/more_grief.md000644 000765 000024 00000000516 15236613223 021420 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-11 # More grief Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - It will pass. But right now it feels real. - [Further notes about this event kept private.] Update - And boom, that's another half day of my life gone that I will not get back again. Get back to work tomorrow. Ethereum smart contracts. text_english/personal/main/consider_meeting_people_atleast_two_days_a_week.md000644 000765 000024 00000002546 15213557765 031147 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-14 # Consider meeting people atleast two days a week Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Today was my off day. - [Notes about what I did today are private.] - I feel so much less neurotic, I think the primary factor is just that I met other humans. - Strongly consider meeting people atleast two days in a week. It doesn't have to be people you know, even attending an event or a talk works, as long as there is some real chance it pays off for your goals (such as meeting people with life missions). - Meeting humans is an ingredient I need to survive, just like sunlight or exercise. Don't substitute it with parasocial interaction on twitter/youtube/movies/etc. Even talking to complete strangers is better than this. Side note (less important) - Also, I am currently in momentum of actually talking to people instead of running solo introspection loop, maybe consider not losing this momentum. A bunch of notes from solo introspection loop have anyway hit dead ends in te