Actually, just because the document is not awesomely formatted, and because mentioning the thanking part undersells the contradiction:
Epstein: is there a 501 c3 that i could give the 50k to/?
Goertzel: Yes: the Singularity Institute for AI (redacted).
Epstein: please send details i will send 50k monday.
Goertzel: many many thanks! ... You won't regret it ;) The AI we build will thank you one day! I am driving now and will send details when I get home
Goertzel, you say? That makes this part of the statement interesting:
Nobody at SIAI noticed the name, and since it wasn’t a donation aimed at SIAI itself, we did not run major-donor relations about it.
Goertzel specifically asked for funds first, $2k for video editing and personally thanked Epstein for the 50k too
Apparently he's a Quaker, so maybe that's how the euthanasia stance can pass muster. But Quakerism might also make even less sense with his views on race? I don't know enough about the reality of Quakerism to say.
Also, looks like Harris also deliberately side-stepped the dinner bait but I don't know how much of that was because of Chomsky's presence. Epstein tried again a year later without the Chomsky attendee name-drop, but Harris might have just not replied.
At least there are no surprises with Dawkins, even his sleazy friend Brockman seemingly finds him tiring
Glib jibes aside, I haven't been able to bring myself to look at many of the docs that aren't just quasi-celeb emails, the few I did see were far too much for me. I'm horrified at nearly everyone from all ideological stances on a number of different levels I never considered. I can only hope the remaining victims someday are able to find some peace, and some kind of huge systemic reform can come from this. What a vile world we live in.
So Krauss tried to introduce Joe Rogan to Epstein
But Rogan may have been unwilling to do so
How is it Joe Rogan is (possibly) the smartest person in this situation?
Risk and limitations: the study is inherently risky. While it is highly likely that STIs that alter female sexual behavior exist in the wider mammalian order, whether or not they current infect humans remains unclear. Challenges exist in successfully culturing newly identified STIs and adapting microbes to standardized lab models for testing. Finally, any new STIs will be relatively easy to test for efficacy in animals but costly and otherwise challenging to test in humans, and it is possible that success in animal models will not translate into human efficacy. Risks can be mitigated by simultaneously conducting animal and human studies, increasing the probability of identifying at least a single mammalian agent that modifies female sexual behavior.
Fucking terrifying.
Commenting "This raises important questions worth discussing. The details matter here and I think we need more transparency around how decisions like this get made." on an illustration of a hedgehog on a bicycle pulling baby hedgehogs in an egg carton AND on a post about using bullet measurements to help Americans visualize 1cm? Slop.
The CIA wrote a document in 1990 "Yugoslavia transformed". It briefly discusses increasing repression of Albanian Kosovars advocating autonomy, and sporadic ethnic conflict, but at that point it even considered military force involvement in secession attempts unlikely. If there were a massive human rights abuse situation at the time of Laber's article, also 1990, how did the CIA miss that?
It's overall a good write up. I think for me there's are some pieces missing though, which I would love to see further explored, although it is not possible yet to fully do so. For example:
If it weren't for the now releases CIA files from the 80s and 90s, you'd think the area had simply disappeared entirely.
I'm sure many of them are somewhat accidental ladder climbers, but looking at some of the names in the list:
These were just the ones I looked at out of curiosity for what they were up to around 2018-2019. There's clearly the TESCREAL theme across the list, but it strikes me that there's also a lot of very active PR/promotion effort across the board. Award nominations don't exactly spontaneously generate from impartial awe-struck onlookers, and media book reviews aren't chosen based on literary merit.
The inclusion of Mac especially is what made me think this might just be a slightly wider list of candidates a grotesque parasite would want to ingratiate themselves with by inviting them give private lectures - he doesn't strike me as a great fit otherwise.
That was my take as well. It's basically anyone in academia/tech who had a PR machine working for them at the time, and a couple of weird extras.
How Gromov only landed the underwhelming summary of "American" is interesting, I assume the list copy paste was cut short and the next word was "mathematician".
If these people did all end up in the same location it's probably safe to assume it was a private and unpublicized event. Some of them seem to have been in and around silicon valley at the time, so maybe one of the tech fake charity "foundation" events.
Who needs pure AI model collapse when you can have journalists give it a more human touch? I caught this snippet from the Australian ABC about the latest Epstein files drop
The Google AI summary does indeed highlight Boris Nikolić the fashion designer if you search for only that name. But I'm assuming this journalist was using ChatGPT, because if you see the Google summary, it very prominently lists his death in 2008. And it's surprisingly correct! A successful scraping of Wikipedia by Gemini, amazing.
But the Epstein email was sent in 2016.
Dors the journalist perhaps think it more likely is the Boris Nikolić who is the biotech VC, former advisor for Bill Gates and named in Epstein's will as the "successor executor"? Info literally all in the third Google result, even in the woeful state of modern Google. Pushed past the fold by the AI feature about the wrong guy, but not exactly buried enough for a journalist to have any excuse.
Pick Up That Can