Here is what I understood his position to be: Sam was persuaded that the death penalty can be justified to take hostages off of the table as bargaining chips in military situations. A living, captive member of an enemy military is a prize that his comrades will want recovered. This means that the enemy will try to obtain negotiation leverage to get him, ie take hostages of their own. That is a bad incentive.

But… why? Why is that a bad incentive? This is the part I’m missing.

I’m not a military guy, but I thought the entire point of a hostage is that it is a good thing to be in possession of something your enemy wants. You can negotiate a peace, get your own captives back, deter an attack, etc. For an enemy like Hamas, I would want them to take hostages if the alternative is to murder them. If Israel didn’t have its own prisoners to trade, would the Israeli hostages that were rescued even be alive at all?

I’m not sure if I didn’t follow the argument or if I just disagreed with him. Curious what you all thought.

Can someone explain to me sam's new take on death penalty, I have heard his previous positions that is related to free will that people don't really have free will and they are pushed by their biology and environment to commit such crimes therefore he is against it, it is a position I shared for the most part

But in the previous episode he mentioned that he changed his mind about the death penalty for Palestinian terrorists to keep them from taking hostages while maintaining his stance on death penalty in the states

Kevin Roose states the the scaling laws... are a smooth upward curve...
"they predict the curve would continue... so far across many orders of magnitude they've been correct."

Sam responds with "so more compute, more data, more parameters - there's a linear relationship between those three variables and the intelligence that comes out on the other side."

This is absolutely wrong.

Edit: ok, this is log-log, not log linear. still the smooth behavior is small improvements for orders of magnitude change in input. Sam imagines linear improvements when it is small exponent power law behavior.

Processing img ctohx6bko7xh1...

The relationship is logarithmic. It takes exponentially more compute, data, and parameters to get linearly increasing intelligence. This is in the scaling papers. Look at the horizontal axis on any of these papers and you find it is log scale with the vertical axis being linear.
And this is why we need massive data centers to train AI, the cost of linear improvement is exponential.

In public discourse, commentators who employ high emotionality, aggressive rhetoric, or performative outrage are frequently dismissed as partisan provocateurs. Conversely, Sam distinctively calm delivery and precise vocabulary helps increase his credibility. I think this is because by stripping his arguments of emotional signaling, they pass through the filters most people use to detect bias. Consequently, this subdued aesthetic can lead listeners to evaluate his conclusions as rigorous, logical deductions, sometimes obscuring logical leaps or foundational flaws that might otherwise receive sharper scrutiny.

Recently, Sam’s characterization of El-Sayed as an Islamist and a "religious thug", relying merely on his "spidey sense" to back up the claim, has sparked skepticism among many of his fans. This isn't an example of Sam's famous command of the dictionary. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a thug is "a man who acts violently, especially to commit a crime." This aggressive rhetoric was a tactic Sam never needed to employ, as his calm, measured arguments were always enough to convey his points. I was motivated to make this observation after reading Ayaan’s post today (in the image), in which she uses similarly aggressive language that triggers bias detector alarms (we have already discussed the issues affecting many within Sam's circle.) This wasn't Sam's style until... maybe a year ago?

A lack of histrionics helped Sam’s credibility in the past. I think his style is changing.

Has Sam weighed in on this confrontation? I believe the latest is that farmers and volunteers (protestors?) were attacked by settlers and then arrested by IDF. The IDF seems to argue some coordination is needed to harvest, since it is near a Jewish settlement. Others argue that’s false and this is land owned by the Palestinians and no checkpoint or border was crossed etc.

Appreciate any balanced discussion on this, or link to Sam discussing it.

The issue is any post or comment that is controversial now gets barraged with people dismissing it for being AI regardless of how sensible that take is or not.

The thing is we live in a world with AI now, Banning obvious AI bot posts and comments is sensible. But everyone utilizes AI in their workflows, when researching, when authoring. It is a companion tool.

More importantly it is still the actual content quality that matters not the tool used to create it. The immidiate accusations of "AI Slop" are unhelpful, often wrong and most importantly just a tactic to not engage and to dissuade others from engaging.

Sam has called Mamdani "a none-too-closeted Islamist, or at a minimum an apologist for Islamists," and described him as "captured by a fairly sinister theocratic agenda." He seems to put Abdul El-Sayed in the same category.

I'm genuinely trying to understand this. Both clearly support separation of church and state and religious freedom, and I haven't seen anything in their records suggesting they want religious law in government. Mamdani has now been running NYC for most of a year, and his agenda has been rent, childcare, and city services.

When asked for evidence, Sam pointed to Mamdani's "political allegiances" and the things his wife likes on social media. I know the broader case usually includes his handling of the "globalize the intifada" question, his rhetoric on Israel, and some of his associations. I can see how someone might call some of that bad judgment, but also doesn't seem like a big deal either, especially given how little this topic informs the way they govern. Calling them "Islamists" is surely a massive leap.

By charging a high annual price with no monthly option, Sam ensures his audience is much smaller than his potential reach. Should we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he does this from a place of considered wisdom?

A public podcast would call for more balance, even criticism of the right. Instead, he targets the left because he sees them as the more reasonable side and more capable of reform. The paywall also limits the damage to the left more broadly, since people leaning away from it won't hear his criticism. So his paywall audience is a curated group: wealthy left-leaning listeners, well positioned to reform the left from within.

I know he says the subscription frees him from advertisers, but that just doesn’t seem worth suppressing his reach so significantly.

What do you think?

Sam Harris recently said in his podcast that El-Sayed is a «covert islamist» because his spidey senses told him so. He clearly doesn’t believe El-Sayed to be a good faith political actor. He also says we should believe jihadists when they say what they mean.

Why not believe El-Sayed when he says what he believes about the constitution?

Sam seems to respect The Atlantic so wonder what he would think on this.

The gist of the article is how much he has moderated since being in office. It’s not a puff piece. and takes a lot of digs at him for backing off quickly on impossible campaign promises. But gives credit for him backing off on things that were impossible once he had some power and could see it.

Spoiler punchline: “Mamdani has discovered that socialism can succeed in New York through one simple trick: abandoning socialism.”
🤣

AES doing what Sam says he wouldn’t.

So what now? Obama seems to be putting all the blame on Israel, which seems to be the world's norm. Palestine is apparently the innocent victim here.

What would Sam say? :)

Relevant IMO as Sam Harris has spoken repeatedly about UN bias and that the charge of genocide is unfounded. This debate lends heavily towards his assessment.

Debate here, transcript here

This debate took place a few days ago. It was between Chris Sidoti (member of the 3 person UN Commission that 'found' Israel committed genocide in Gaza) versus Brian Cox, international criminal law expert. Panelist and audience questions were included. Its brutal, Sidoti admits the commission didnt verify evidence, conveniently forgets things, etc.

Some highlights here, the IVF clinic exchange is bonkers:

Sidoti admits the commission didnt make its determination in a standard beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. the ONLY reasonable inference for what we're seeing is clear unambiguous genocidal intent), but merely reasonable inference where there may be reasonable doubt. And this "inference" is made while simultaneously acknowledging Israel's intent was to eliminate Hamas

Sidoti: According to the International Court of Justice, to form a conclusion that the purpose is genocidal on the basis of inference requires that inference be the only reasonable inference available. That’s a really high test. It’s a test in fact that in my opinion is higher than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. You know you can say you can have four or five possible inferences that you can draw from circumstantial evidence and you can conclude I have no doubt that this is the inference that we must draw. But in the case of genocidal purpose, it has to be the only reasonable inference, not just the one that we have no reasonable doubt about. [...]

Sidoti: The fighting, the strategy can be undertaken in such a way in our view of the law that it can coexist with a goal of eliminating Hamas and there were a number of factors which we can go into later that induced us to come to that conclusion.

Audience member asks about the Guardian's reporting (cited in the UN report) that 83% of the dead were civilians, and what the steps commission took to verify that. The answer was nothing.

Audience Member: I’d just like to ask—your report says that [unclear] Israeli intelligence identified 8,900 dead or probably dead Hamas and PIJ militants out of roughly 53,000 fatalities. That means 83% were civilians. Did the commission independently establish that the remaining approximately 44,000 people were civilians?

Chris Sidoti: No we didn’t because we don’t have that information. Nor did we establish that the numbers that the IDF claimed were militants were accurate as well. So we literally do not know nor does anybody else know including the IDF how many militants were there. But the IDF is claiming that there were 17,000, 17% Sorry.

A panelist inquires about Israel purportedly destroying 5000 embryos at an IVF clinic, listed in the UN report as Israel "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group".

As it turns out, the number wasnt 5000, the clinic wasnt necessarily destroyed by Israel, the UN ignored its own witness, the building was not marked as a fertility clinic (google it), and Sidoti fumbles and stumbles along!

Mark Holtz (panelist): We’ve already researched this. You claim that 5,000 embryos were wasted and births were prevented in Gaza. And it’s very sad, but your own expert told you that the director of the hospital had destroyed 2,000 embryos himself because they’d run out of nitrogen. So you’ve got running out of nitrogen. The place has been taken over by raging terrorists. We know that. Or Israel sent a tank to line up the one shot? This is the only reasonable explanation you found? So how did you confirm that the Israeli tank was responsible?

Chris Sidoti: Firstly, let me say I cannot give you a detailed response because I’ve not looked at this now for two years that one on the 5,000 or or whatever

Mark Holtz: You you’ve said Israel committed genocide. You should know your facts. [applause]

Chris Sidoti: I know my facts, Mark. But I don’t necessarily sit here without notice being able to go through the information on every single case. But I can tell you that it was a tank shell. Hamas doesn’t have tanks.

Mark Holtz: But they’ve got Kornet missiles. They’ve got RPGs. They have multiple.

Chris Sidoti: It was a tank shell. It was a tank shell.

Mark Holtz: Why are there no burn marks in the building? If it was an Israeli tank, and you’re battle damage assessment experts and I’ve asked a few people, you wouldn’t have the coffee cup still sitting on the table, the papers on the desk, and the glass window not broken in your own pictures. Because if it was an Israeli tank shell, there’d be shit everywhere.

Chris Sidoti: Okay. I don’t know about that. I mean, I haven’t looked at that. There were no buildings surrounding it that were damaged at the time that this was done. There was no fighting going on at the time that the shell was fired. The building was marked as a fertility clinic in Arabic, but with also an international symbol that it was a medical facility.

Mark Holtz: No, no, there was no I’ve got the picture. It wasn’t.

Chris Sidoti: It was

Mark Holtz: And you said at a press conference that you have no evidence and you actually believe the tank driver or shooter who didn’t know it wasn’t.

Chris Sidoti: Now, that I can respond to. I said that. Yes.

Mark Holtz: Good.

Chris Sidoti: But I also said that it was quite clear to us that the targeting authorities that those who were responsible for targeting would have known that it was a medical facility and what the medical facility was used for. It was the largest by far fertility clinic in Gaza and was well known as such. And are you saying that the Israeli intelligence didn’t know that a medical facility providing fertility services was a medical facility providing fertility services? So, I said that the tank crew didn’t know and we don’t know what the tank crew knew.

Mark Holtz: Why did you intentionally not listen, your own expert said they can’t say it was an Israeli tank. The evidence is online. You interviewed the lady. Her name is Professor Parrin. She came from Chicago to Geneva. You deposed her. The evidence is online. I’ve got the transcript. I’ve watched the evidence. But what she said that there weren’t 5,000 embryos. So, there were either 3,000 embryos or no embryos. But you’ve got that, you just ignored it.

Chris Sidoti: Look I’m stumbling and I know that I shouldn’t be stumbling in front of this particular audience, but I don’t want to answer the question unless I’ve gone back and looked at it again.

Are the full (subscriber) transcripts of Sam’s podcast episodes available somewhere? I poked around the web site and came up empty.

Im pretty sure some of y'all have listened to this already. A fascinating conversation about anthropomorphizing AI tools. For someone who's instinctively turned off by AI for the most part but hypocritically uses it a bit to make some parts of work easy, I find it truly interesting that a lot of people turn to bots for regular and intimate conversations.

Quite a few things I took away and ponder but I would like to hear y'all thoughts and experiences.

1) "We nurture things we love and love things we nurture" (but) also "We dont care about people because we love them. We love them because we care."

2) I seen this personally myself where some people justify their reliance of these bots as them training the chatbot but really the bots are the ones training us. As a result, we expect people to behave a certain way and run from friction, which is arguably a greater good for society.

3) The problem with using chatbots for therapy is that they don't care. Their "care" is just a reward function that is controlled by corporations with arguably conniving motives. There's also mention of distinction between care vs contract. How it shapes commitment, the metrics of a good relationship and why that matters to the people involved in that relationship/transaction.

4) As physical human connections are becoming harder to establish and maintain, reliance on chatbots for exactly that erodes a very human need to have a wide spectrum of conversations. Paradoxically, that depends on our ability to tolerate uncomfortable situations and conversations.

Long-time Sam and Bret fan here. Bret was right about so much, and Sam publicly disowned him as a charlatan. Sam is a genius and rarely misses. It is my contention that he was so so wrong on this one and owes the Weinstein’s an apology. I hope their friendship can heal. Try to change my mind.

'The feeling of not liking, this feeling of outrage, this feeling of disgust, this feeling of 'Sam, what the fuck is wrong with you? Why are you even touching this topic? This feeling... isn't an argument. It isn't, or shouldn't be, the basis for your believing anything to be true or false about the world. Your capacity to be offended isn't something that I or anyone else needs to respect. Your capacity to be offended isn't something that you should respect. In fact it's something that you should be on your guard for, perhaps more than any other property of your mind. This feeling can mislead you. If you care about justice, and you absolutely should, you should care about facts and the ability to discuss them openly. Justice requires contact with reality. It simply isn't the case, it cannot be the case, that the most pressing claims on our sense of justice need come from those who claim to be most offended by conversation itself.”