5 ms·

> This sounds like you're describing an evil AI Yes, they're called "corporations". We used to have software that helped keep their incentives aligned with tho

> This sounds like you're describing an evil AI Yes, they're called "corporations". We used to have software that helped keep their incentives aligned with those of the species, or at least those of Americans, but the Citizens United decision and the end of Glass-Steagall EOLed that stuff without an upgrade path - I blame Google lobbyists, that's just their style - and we've spent the last couple decades finding out why that maybe wasn't such a great idea.

sneak 5y ago
Corporations have no minds and have no hands. They cannot think, decide, or act. Every action undertaken by a corporation was performed by a human being (or programmed by a human being). Corporate "speech" is still just human rights to free expression. Corporations have nothing to say without humans.
- halpert 5y ago
  But a corporation is a legal construct, and ownership of one isn’t anymore a right than having a drivers license. I believe it’s totally within the governments rights to regulate them differently than the individual citizens comprising the corporation.
- thatcat 5y ago
  A group of people takes on a hive mind aligned with the interest of the corporation and the corporate bureaucracy manages the hands that act on its behalf with an incentive structure. This constitutes a separate person, legally, with liability that is not on the individual because they cannot individually control the agenda and actions of the larger corporation.
- ahonhn 5y ago
  And every action undertaken by humans was performed by neurons and muscle fibres.
- phs318u 5y ago
  > Corporations have no minds I'm really interested in this view. I suspect that at a large enough size, organisations can absolutely have an emergent... "nature", which is not only characteristic of that organisation, but largely independent of its constituents (the humans). I introduce into evidence the Roman Catholic Church. It is so large, so entrenched in its ways, that it is extremely highly unlikely that an individual within it (including the pope) can substantially change the character of the organisation. I have a personal belief that humans are to very large organisations (incl. nation states) as cells are to higher-order creatures. Once a large enough organisation has "matured", humans entering the organisation adapt themselves to it (probably subconsciously), and the organisation's unique culture survives.
  - dumbfoundded 5y ago
    It's called culture and large groups of humans are known to experience it.
    - wruza 5y ago
      It's different from culture. A culture makes everyone think in a similar way, there is one role: a participant of it. A corporation doesn't have to make everyone think the same, because it has many roles and written processes and KPIs which modulate anyone taking a role into a gear that rotates accordingly to the big schema. Corporations may have culture and it may be definitive, but it's not only that.
      - dumbfoundded 5y ago
        You should just google the definition of culture. Lots of work has been done to study culture at numerous levels from nations to corporations to small communities. It's called anthropology. If you're actually curious, you should actually read papers and studies. This HN trend of ignorantly waxing philosophically about some topic adds no value to anyone's mind.
        wruza 5y ago
- asta123 5y ago
  There is an interesting talk 'Dude, You Broke the Future'[0] in which speaker compares corporations to 'paperclip maximizer' AI which could destroy us with their sole gole of maximizing profits (or paperclips) 0: https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-9270-dude_you_broke_the_future https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-9270-dude_you_broke_the_future
- numpad0 5y ago
  I think there is a naive assumption to it that nothing other than humans had ever been proven (smarter && autonomous && self-sustaining) than a human, thus a corporate cannot be alive. I’m not sure how is this proposition remains supported and for how long.
- ajmurmann 5y ago
  Most people in a corporation aren't doing what they personally would like to do, but what's on the interest of the corporation and what the corporation incentives then to do. This might be at odds with the personal preferences. People's livelihood depends on the rest of the corporation remaining positive towards them and thus this bar gets moved quite far over time.
- endominus 5y ago
  May I rephrase your statement slightly? Humans have no nucleus, no mitochondria, no golgi apparatus. They cannot transcribe RNA or respirate or activate neurons. Every action undertaken by a human was performed by a cell (or an agglomeration of cells) within it. Human "action" is just the emergent properties of cells. Humans can do nothing without cells.
  - sneak 5y ago
    Humans have mass, corporations do not. There is a fundamental difference in the concept of an entity that exists as a whole, and a legal construct that is purely an economic allocation abstraction. Nations aren't real either.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - endominus 5y ago
      Cells have mass, humans do not. There is a fundamental difference between the basic building blocks of life and a convenient term for an ambulatory hallucinating collection of them. This can go on. Do you not see the flaw in your argument?
- oefnak 5y ago
  You should read Meditations on Moloch, by Scot Alexander.
- colordrops 5y ago
  Humans have no minds or hands. They are just a collection of cells.
- 20after4 5y ago
  Recommendation: read The Grapes of Wrath, chapter 5 in particular.
- advrs 5y ago
  This is an oversimplified take, and completely glosses over macro social effects beyond "individual choice". This is the social science equivalent of reasoning about human behavior and focusing on the behavior of individual neuron connections, or the behavior of an OS by focusing entirely on the I/O drivers - wrong scope of analysis.
spion 5y ago
The more likely explanation is that they originally formed teams to address this problem, teams that are now left with a choice between twiddling their thumbs and this.
advrs 5y ago
Yeah, they really jumped the shark with that release. The meta has been changing drastically, and I don't know if the dev team really is interested in patching it back up.

sneak 5y ago

Corporations have no minds and have no hands. They cannot think, decide, or act. Every action undertaken by a corporation was performed by a human being (or programmed by a human being). Corporate "speech" is still just human rights to free expression. Corporations have nothing to say without humans.

halpert 5y ago
But a corporation is a legal construct, and ownership of one isn’t anymore a right than having a drivers license. I believe it’s totally within the governments rights to regulate them differently than the individual citizens comprising the corporation.
thatcat 5y ago
A group of people takes on a hive mind aligned with the interest of the corporation and the corporate bureaucracy manages the hands that act on its behalf with an incentive structure. This constitutes a separate person, legally, with liability that is not on the individual because they cannot individually control the agenda and actions of the larger corporation.
ahonhn 5y ago
And every action undertaken by humans was performed by neurons and muscle fibres.
phs318u 5y ago
> Corporations have no minds I'm really interested in this view. I suspect that at a large enough size, organisations can absolutely have an emergent... "nature", which is not only characteristic of that organisation, but largely independent of its constituents (the humans). I introduce into evidence the Roman Catholic Church. It is so large, so entrenched in its ways, that it is extremely highly unlikely that an individual within it (including the pope) can substantially change the character of the organisation. I have a personal belief that humans are to very large organisations (incl. nation states) as cells are to higher-order creatures. Once a large enough organisation has "matured", humans entering the organisation adapt themselves to it (probably subconsciously), and the organisation's unique culture survives.
- dumbfoundded 5y ago
  It's called culture and large groups of humans are known to experience it.
  - wruza 5y ago
    It's different from culture. A culture makes everyone think in a similar way, there is one role: a participant of it. A corporation doesn't have to make everyone think the same, because it has many roles and written processes and KPIs which modulate anyone taking a role into a gear that rotates accordingly to the big schema. Corporations may have culture and it may be definitive, but it's not only that.
    - dumbfoundded 5y ago
      You should just google the definition of culture. Lots of work has been done to study culture at numerous levels from nations to corporations to small communities. It's called anthropology. If you're actually curious, you should actually read papers and studies. This HN trend of ignorantly waxing philosophically about some topic adds no value to anyone's mind.
      - wruza 5y ago
asta123 5y ago
There is an interesting talk 'Dude, You Broke the Future'[0] in which speaker compares corporations to 'paperclip maximizer' AI which could destroy us with their sole gole of maximizing profits (or paperclips) 0: https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-9270-dude_you_broke_the_future https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-9270-dude_you_broke_the_future
numpad0 5y ago
I think there is a naive assumption to it that nothing other than humans had ever been proven (smarter && autonomous && self-sustaining) than a human, thus a corporate cannot be alive. I’m not sure how is this proposition remains supported and for how long.
ajmurmann 5y ago
Most people in a corporation aren't doing what they personally would like to do, but what's on the interest of the corporation and what the corporation incentives then to do. This might be at odds with the personal preferences. People's livelihood depends on the rest of the corporation remaining positive towards them and thus this bar gets moved quite far over time.
endominus 5y ago
May I rephrase your statement slightly? Humans have no nucleus, no mitochondria, no golgi apparatus. They cannot transcribe RNA or respirate or activate neurons. Every action undertaken by a human was performed by a cell (or an agglomeration of cells) within it. Human "action" is just the emergent properties of cells. Humans can do nothing without cells.
- sneak 5y ago
  Humans have mass, corporations do not. There is a fundamental difference in the concept of an entity that exists as a whole, and a legal construct that is purely an economic allocation abstraction. Nations aren't real either.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - endominus 5y ago
    Cells have mass, humans do not. There is a fundamental difference between the basic building blocks of life and a convenient term for an ambulatory hallucinating collection of them. This can go on. Do you not see the flaw in your argument?
oefnak 5y ago
You should read Meditations on Moloch, by Scot Alexander.
colordrops 5y ago
Humans have no minds or hands. They are just a collection of cells.
20after4 5y ago
Recommendation: read The Grapes of Wrath, chapter 5 in particular.
advrs 5y ago
This is an oversimplified take, and completely glosses over macro social effects beyond "individual choice". This is the social science equivalent of reasoning about human behavior and focusing on the behavior of individual neuron connections, or the behavior of an OS by focusing entirely on the I/O drivers - wrong scope of analysis.

spion 5y ago

The more likely explanation is that they originally formed teams to address this problem, teams that are now left with a choice between twiddling their thumbs and this.

advrs 5y ago

Yeah, they really jumped the shark with that release. The meta has been changing drastically, and I don't know if the dev team really is interested in patching it back up.