Peter Thiel warns of the AntiChrist and destruction of the US

Gifted article: https://wapo.st/4q5wR6S

One gathering hosted by Tan in June featured Pat Gelsinger, former CEO of chipmaker Intel, and was organized by ACTS 17, according to a social post by Gelsinger. “Such a deep discussion on the ‘Holy Shift’ across life, AI, leadership and faith,” he wrote.
A spokesperson for Playground, a venture capital firm where Gelsinger is a general partner, declined to comment.
Tan said he thought Thiel’s comparison of potential overregulation of AI to the Antichrist was “thought-provoking” and a “somewhat tongue-in-cheek” use of the concept. “These are useful mental frameworks for how technology interacts with society,” he said.
Overregulation of nuclear power has worsened the climate crisis, he added. “What if we do that to the age of intelligence? The future won’t repeat, but it will rhyme.”

Click to expand...

To me, the mixture of immense wealth, unlimited AI and religion is a bit blind ( willfully or deceptively ) to how well their own goals comport with the Antichrist and Beasts predicted in Revelations.

Note: I am not a biblical scholar.

I read that article early this morning. Apparently the billionaire Thiel has never read the verse about how hard it is for a rich man to enter heaven. Thiel is openly gay but he's married to a woman. He's a total asshole, which I knew long before I read the article this morning. AI uses a lot of energy, causing the average person's power bill to rise and who knows what all it's doing to the environment. Thiel is an asshole.

southernhybrid said:

I read that article early this morning. Apparently the billionaire Thiel has never read the verse about how hard it is for a rich man to enter heaven. Thiel is openly gay but he's married to a woman. He's a total asshole, which I knew long before I read the article this morning. AI uses a lot of energy, causing the average person's power bill to rise and who knows what all it's doing to the environment. Thiel is an asshole.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that asshole put JD Vance in the #2 spot—which is extremely problematic, given out POTUS.

southernhybrid said:

AI uses a lot of energy, causing the average person's power bill to rise and who knows what all it's doing to the environment.

Click to expand...

Not a problem for long, hopefully.
Oklo’s first power generator, the Aurora powerhouse, is expected to go online in late 2027 or early 2028 at the Idaho National Laboratory. I have high hopes for it.
Their mini-nuke is designed to operate off-grid, generating power specifically for data centers and other high-consumption sites, and I think it will go beyond that if allowed to progress. Anyhow, I’m glad to see some tech billionaire power people embracing the concept of decentralized power generation - and increasingly, backing it.

(Stock I bought a year ago for $12.80 is over $150.00 at the moment, and I think it could go another 10x in the next few years. It fluctuates pretty wildly (up 9% today’s with the indices off 1-2%) but is still listed as a “buy” with a $175 target.)

Elixir said:

southernhybrid said:

AI uses a lot of energy, causing the average person's power bill to rise and who knows what all it's doing to the environment.

Click to expand...

Not a problem for long, hopefully.
Oklo’s first power generator, the Aurora powerhouse, is expected to go online in late 2027 or early 2028 at the Idaho National Laboratory. I have high hopes for it.
Their mini-nuke is designed to operate off-grid, generating power specifically for data centers and other high-consumption sites, and I think it will go beyond that if allowed to progress. Anyhow, I’m glad to see some tech billionaire power people embracing the concept of decentralized power generation - and increasingly, backing it.

(Stock I bought a year ago for $12.80 is over $150.00 at the moment, and I think it could go another 10x in the next few years. It fluctuates pretty wildly (up 9% today’s with the indices off 1-2%) but is still listed as a “buy” with a $175 target.)

Click to expand...

I absolutely do not believe that it ( enormous consumption of energy—and water!!) will only be a temporary issue.

It seems that we are moving very far and very quickly past the idea that technology is to serve people and not corporations and oligarchs who exist outside of normal societal roles, rules and expectations and instead seem to be operating as Demi-Huss, a comparison I’m certain they would feel is far too modest taking into consideration their absolute right to do whatever the fuck they want, damn the cost and full speed ahead.

If ( or rather, when) there are issues with nuclear power, they will be very long term.

Toni said:

If ( or rather, when) there are issues with nuclear power, they will be very long term.

Click to expand...

By the time nuclear power could possibly create enough "issues" of any kind as to surpass the issues from coal power, we will all have been dead for hundreds of thousands of years.

And that's assuming that we embark on a massive build out of nuclear worldwide, today, and don't stop until it's the dominant technology for generating electricity.

Elixir said:

southernhybrid said:

AI uses a lot of energy, causing the average person's power bill to rise and who knows what all it's doing to the environment.

Click to expand...

Not a problem for long, hopefully.
Oklo’s first power generator, the Aurora powerhouse, is expected to go online in late 2027 or early 2028 at the Idaho National Laboratory. I have high hopes for it.
Their mini-nuke is designed to operate off-grid, generating power specifically for data centers and other high-consumption sites, and I think it will go beyond that if allowed to progress. Anyhow, I’m glad to see some tech billionaire power people embracing the concept of decentralized power generation - and increasingly, backing it.

(Stock I bought a year ago for $12.80 is over $150.00 at the moment, and I think it could go another 10x in the next few years. It fluctuates pretty wildly (up 9% today’s with the indices off 1-2%) but is still listed as a “buy” with a $175 target.)

Click to expand...

Hope you're right and congrats on doing so well on a stock. Mr.Sohy never does and he sold the one I told him not to sell a few years ago and it's up about 5 times. Right now the damn market is down about 800, all because of something Trump said about China this morning.

Toni said:

If ( or rather, when) there are issues with nuclear power, they will be very long term.

Click to expand...

Yeah, using energy has impacts and there is no way to avoid thermodynamic laws. But nuclear is the lowest impact of available energy sources, and decentralized power is the most stable. The future lies that way IMO, which is why I originally was, and remain, a fan of OKLO.

The "issues" you envision are exactly ... what? Site contamination? Waste disposal? What? Are they greater than the same issues or less manageable (per joule, foot pound or whatever unit of useable energy or work) than the same isues from wind, solar or fossil fuels?
AFAICT (I have read a tiny bit about it), the answer is a resounding "no".

Unfortunately I don't think humans are about to "return to nature" as a species, live as compatible small tribes and stop consuming energy. I hope for mankind that plentiful energy for human wants and needs will be available in the future and that it's use will not continue to be to the detriment to the other living things on the planet. I don't see any other path at the moment.

bilby said:

Toni said:

If ( or rather, when) there are issues with nuclear power, they will be very long term.

Click to expand...

By the time nuclear power could possibly create enough "issues" of any kind as to surpass the issues from coal power, we will all have been dead for hundreds of thousands of years.

And that's assuming that we embark on a massive build out of nuclear worldwide, today, and don't stop until it's the dominant technology for generating electricity.

Click to expand...

But it isn’t a choice between coal vs nuclear. Solar has much better potential for clean energy.

Also I don’t know if you’ve had nuclear accidents in Australia but we’ve had them in the US and also in Russia. Ongoing cleanup and decommissioning continues to this day re; Three Mile Island, beginning in 1979. So 46 years later, it’s not all fixed. Waste material was shipped more than 2000 miles from Pennsylvania to Idaho.

Toni said:

bilby said:

Toni said:

If ( or rather, when) there are issues with nuclear power, they will be very long term.

Click to expand...

By the time nuclear power could possibly create enough "issues" of any kind as to surpass the issues from coal power, we will all have been dead for hundreds of thousands of years.

And that's assuming that we embark on a massive build out of nuclear worldwide, today, and don't stop until it's the dominant technology for generating electricity.

Click to expand...

But it isn’t a choice between coal vs nuclear. Solar has much better potential for clean energy.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. It could, if you can arrange for daytime to last 24 hours, with no clouds.

Toni said:

Also I don’t know

Click to expand...

Seriously, what you don't know about the subject is clearly endless, given this utter tripe masquerading as useful commentary:

Toni said:

if you’ve had nuclear accidents in Australia but we’ve had them in the US and also in Russia. Ongoing cleanup and decommissioning continues to this day re; Three Mile Island, beginning in 1979. So 46 years later, it’s not all fixed. Waste material was shipped more than 2000 miles from Pennsylvania to Idaho.

Click to expand...

This is Flat Earth level disinformation.

It is "not even wrong", and frankly I don't have the energy to adress it YET AGAIN. Do a search for posts by me with the keyword "nuclear", and read and attempt to understand what I have written at great length and with considerable detail in the past. Better still, learn about how electricity is generated by all the different technologies we have tried (and how integrated grids supply that electricity 24/7/365), and compare them one against another. None are perfect, but one is clearly and by FAR the least harmful.

Suffice to say that the only fatal nuclear power accident ever was at Chernobyl, and that we would need a Chernobyl "disaster" twice a month, forever, in order to approach the same level of worldwide death, illness, injury and environmental damage that other electricity generating technologies cause in normal (non accident) operations.

You have a very strong opinion, based on a LOT of "Also I don’t know". You - like most of those with strong opinions on this subject - need to stop talking, and start studying.

"Nuclear power isn't dangerous" is as true, and as unnecessary (to anyone with clue the first), a statement as "the Earth isn't flat".

I think Peter Thiel is the AntiChrist, so I find his warning either confusing or arrogant.

laughing dog said:

I think Peter Thiel is the AntiChrist, so I find his warning either confusing or arrogant.

Click to expand...

On second thought, it might be Russel Vought, who I think is the shadow president, as well as a possible anti Christ.

It is simply a personal belief he has, and we must respect it (sarcasm).

At The moment, US has an abundant supply of Anti-Christs, one on every corner

bilby said:

Toni said:

bilby said:

Toni said:

If ( or rather, when) there are issues with nuclear power, they will be very long term.

Click to expand...

By the time nuclear power could possibly create enough "issues" of any kind as to surpass the issues from coal power, we will all have been dead for hundreds of thousands of years.

And that's assuming that we embark on a massive build out of nuclear worldwide, today, and don't stop until it's the dominant technology for generating electricity.

Click to expand...

But it isn’t a choice between coal vs nuclear. Solar has much better potential for clean energy.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. It could, if you can arrange for daytime to last 24 hours, with no clouds.

Toni said:

Also I don’t know

Click to expand...

Seriously, what you don't know about the subject is clearly endless, given this utter tripe masquerading as useful commentary:

Toni said:

if you’ve had nuclear accidents in Australia but we’ve had them in the US and also in Russia. Ongoing cleanup and decommissioning continues to this day re; Three Mile Island, beginning in 1979. So 46 years later, it’s not all fixed. Waste material was shipped more than 2000 miles from Pennsylvania to Idaho.

Click to expand...

This is Flat Earth level disinformation.

It is "not even wrong", and frankly I don't have the energy to adress it YET AGAIN. Do a search for posts by me with the keyword "nuclear", and read and attempt to understand what I have written at great length and with considerable detail in the past. Better still, learn about how electricity is generated by all the different technologies we have tried (and how integrated grids supply that electricity 24/7/365), and compare them one against another. None are perfect, but one is clearly and by FAR the least harmful.

Suffice to say that the only fatal nuclear power accident ever was at Chernobyl, and that we would need a Chernobyl "disaster" twice a month, forever, in order to approach the same level of worldwide death, illness, injury and environmental damage that other electricity generating technologies cause in normal (non accident) operations.

You have a very strong opinion, based on a LOT of "Also I don’t know". You - like most of those with strong opinions on this subject - need to stop talking, and start studying.

"Nuclear power isn't dangerous" is as true, and as unnecessary (to anyone with clue the first), a statement as "the Earth isn't flat".

Click to expand...

If only solar energy could be stored in something like…a battery?

Toni said:

If only solar energy could be stored in something like…a battery?

Click to expand...

A free battery made with no environmental impact that's as safe as a nuclear power plant?

Yeah, if only.

Meanwhile, the laws of physics continue to apply, even if you prefer to ignore them.

Elixir said:

southernhybrid said:

AI uses a lot of energy, causing the average person's power bill to rise and who knows what all it's doing to the environment.

Click to expand...

Not a problem for long, hopefully.
Oklo’s first power generator, the Aurora powerhouse, is expected to go online in late 2027 or early 2028 at the Idaho National Laboratory. I have high hopes for it.
Their mini-nuke is designed to operate off-grid, generating power specifically for data centers and other high-consumption sites, and I think it will go beyond that if allowed to progress. Anyhow, I’m glad to see some tech billionaire power people embracing the concept of decentralized power generation - and increasingly, backing it.

(Stock I bought a year ago for $12.80 is over $150.00 at the moment, and I think it could go another 10x in the next few years. It fluctuates pretty wildly (up 9% today’s with the indices off 1-2%) but is still listed as a “buy” with a $175 target.)

Click to expand...

Penn Gillette of Penn and Teller wrote an essay about Las Vegas and characterized it as city built on "bad math". He said everyday, thousands of people travel to Las Vegas and see waterfalls in the desert, pyramids, and places where the lights are never turned off. According to Gillette, none of these arriving bad mathematicians thinks to ask, "How do they pay for all of this?"

That's the real question. Ginormous data centers cost a lot to build and a lot to run, and a lot to maintain.

If I were thinking about building a toothbrush factory, the calculations would be fairly straightforward, once I knew the price of a toothbrush, what it would cost to make a toothbrush, and the market for toothbrushes. I would hope future toothbrush sales would cover my costs and return a profit on my investment.

All these data centers seem more defensive than economic. Tech bros want a data center because they don't want to be the only one without a data center. Back to the real question. What are they going to produce that can be sold at a price to cover expenses? Macroeconomics has a term know as margin cost of production. What does it cost to produce one more toothbrush? A cyber product, whether it's answer to a Google search or a high school students term paper, has a marginal cost of zero. When the data centers enter the market and have to compete with each other, how will they price the product? Will competition become a race to the bottom between all centers and the only goal is to pay this month's electric bill.

In the year 2025, I'll wager there are more shut down automobile factories than there are operating ones. Factories of all kinds close all the time. It doesn't matter how much was invested to build it, when it can't pay for itself, it's dead.

When a data center shuts down, it will not only kill the jobs inside the fence, but also the jobs in all the infrastructure built to support it. If I had a crystal ball, it would probably show me some WorldCon/Enron/FTX level bankruptcies in the future.

Bronzeage said:

What are they going to produce that can be sold at a price to cover expenses?

Click to expand...

AI capability for one thing. Seems to be the anticipated need right now.
But reliable, useable energy is always a commodity.

Toni said:

If ( or rather, when) there are issues with nuclear power, they will be very long term.

Click to expand...

We understand the issues with nuke. There have been no big surprises for a long time.

And the statistics remain clear: Gas is 10x as dangerous as nuke. Oil is 10x as dangerous as gas. Coal is 10x as dangerous as oil. The as safe as reasonably possible safety standard for nuclear actually increases risk considerably.

Toni said:

But it isn’t a choice between coal vs nuclear. Solar has much better potential for clean energy.

Click to expand...

Solar is currently non-viable and that is not expected to change. Solar isn't consistent, you need fossil fuel plants ready to take up the load.

Toni said:

Also I don’t know if you’ve had nuclear accidents in Australia but we’ve had them in the US and also in Russia. Ongoing cleanup and decommissioning continues to this day re; Three Mile Island, beginning in 1979. So 46 years later, it’s not all fixed. Waste material was shipped more than 2000 miles from Pennsylvania to Idaho.

Click to expand...

Three Mile Island: Some NRC guys were on site and took a perfectly manageable incident and turned it into destruction of a reactor. Death toll: zero. Effective risk: basically zero. If you were standing at the reactor fence when it happened would evacuating be a good idea? You come to your first street--nope, crossing one street is more dangerous than staying put for the duration.

Chernobyl: Major mistake, killed dozens. The predicted mass radiation deaths did not appear.

Fukushima: Once again, a case of meddling. The engineers knew they had to vent, the politicians would not permit it. The stuff they didn't vent blew up. Even with the politician's meddling the expected death toll was zero. They meddled once again, evacuating the city and killing hundreds in the process. That one fake problem killed more than all real nuclear issues have. Growing food in the city probably wouldn't have been a good idea, but it shouldn't have been evacuated.

There have been plenty of industrial accidents with other power sources. There have been individual incidents with coal that killed more than the lifetime record for nuclear.