5 ms·

Whenever I want to get really angry, I convert the funding the latest Uber But For Pets On The Blockchain Using LLMs into "R01s" - the standard $1.250 million d

by Fomite 3y ago

Whenever I want to get really angry, I convert the funding the latest Uber But For Pets On The Blockchain Using LLMs into "R01s" - the standard $1.250 million dollar NIH grants that are considered career making in the biological sciences. You could change the world with the amount of money he's been given to...do whatever it is he can't even articulate.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
Yeah, but you can change the world, and it doesn't necessarily mean you'll make a lot of money, and that's all anyone cares about, so what are you gonna do?
- asimpletune 3y ago
  I think one of the problems is there are ludicrous amounts of money to be made changing the world, enough to make whatever's happening for 99% of most hype-fueld ventures today look like drops in an ocean. So if what I'm saying is to be believed then why doesn't the market optimize for it? Like, if there's so much money to make why doesn't it happen? I think the answer is in two parts. One, there is a political environment that is very much interested in preserving itself regardless of whatever so-called benefits could come from actually changing the world, and two the market isn't really some kind of god like oracle that always does the "right" thing. I'll give you an example to better explain what I mean to say. The Roman Empire had a lot of good things going for it. They had many of the necessary ingredients for an Industrial Revolution to take place more than a thousand years earlier. So why didn't it? Clearly there was a lot of money to be made in hindsight, but in their political environment it was never going to happen. Rome, as impressive as it was, had a small political class of movers and shakers who owned most of the wealth, and to those people if given more money they'd just buy more farmland. That's it. Literally, to them, the Roman political elite, the only way to invest money was buy farms. I think in today's day and age we're in a similar conundrum. Obviously it's more nuanced and sophisticated than where the Romans were at, but most of the people who have power today can't understand or imagine the benefit of improving the world. The market isn't magically selecting for those things because they are a large part of the market.
  - pygy_ 3y ago
    The market favors the market. Capital begets capital. Humans are at best an afterthought.
    - golergka 3y ago
      Humans are the ones who own and deploy capital. It's ordinary people's savings and pensions. But people like to invent boogymen so that they don't have to take responsibility for their action, so they blame wall street and conveniently forget that its their own money that wall street is managing.
      - asimpletune 3y ago
        Why does there have to be anyone held responsible at all? Couldn’t it be possible that given the present day’s circumstances everybody just does the best they can, and, nonetheless, it leads to regrettable results? My example of Rome earlier want meant to point to their political elite as a Boogeyman. I meant it more like despite their best efforts an Industrial Revolution was virtually impossible in that environment. Funny enough having slaves and oligarchy was exactly the kind of thing that held Rome back. I mean only to imply that in todays day and age, we have our version of that same situation, and similarly there is untold prosperity forever waiting to happen until the status quo changes.
        rchaud 3y ago
        > Why does there have to be anyone held responsible at all? Because they were granted power, and responsibility was the other half of that equation.
        pygy_ 3y ago
        Someone's having a "Are we the baddies?" moment :-)
      - cmmeur01 3y ago
        Ordinary people don’t have savings and pensions, at least not in the US.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Indeed. The investors and boards care not about total amount od wealth a venture could generate, but about the amount they can capture. A $100B benefit to the world, of which the people involved can capture only $1K is useless, compared to $10M world benefit of which they can capture $9M (and the preferred one is the one which earns them $100M while giving the world negative $1B).
tomjen3 3y ago
With the amount of money I spent on my car (which is not a lot compared to what most people spend) I could have saved several people by donating to givewell, at a comparatively trivial inconvinience of having to bicycle/take the bus to work. But I didn't, because the money is mine to do with as I please. Just like the billionairs money is theirs to do with as they please.
- roflyear 3y ago
  Technically correct, but can be applied to a lot of things that were technically correct: - Land was the Lord's to do with as they pleased - Slaves were the owner's to do with as they pleased etc.. if the wealth is gathered through exploitation, I think it is appropriate to criticize how that wealth is being used. Hell, it's appropriate to just criticize the wealth, I think. But these things are shades of gray and rarely as clear-cut as slavery. For example, let's say you're the only job in XYZ town. People aren't forced to work there, but they kinda gotta. Things are not so simple in most cases.

by Fomite 3y ago

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

Yeah, but you can change the world, and it doesn't necessarily mean you'll make a lot of money, and that's all anyone cares about, so what are you gonna do?

asimpletune 3y ago
I think one of the problems is there are ludicrous amounts of money to be made changing the world, enough to make whatever's happening for 99% of most hype-fueld ventures today look like drops in an ocean. So if what I'm saying is to be believed then why doesn't the market optimize for it? Like, if there's so much money to make why doesn't it happen? I think the answer is in two parts. One, there is a political environment that is very much interested in preserving itself regardless of whatever so-called benefits could come from actually changing the world, and two the market isn't really some kind of god like oracle that always does the "right" thing. I'll give you an example to better explain what I mean to say. The Roman Empire had a lot of good things going for it. They had many of the necessary ingredients for an Industrial Revolution to take place more than a thousand years earlier. So why didn't it? Clearly there was a lot of money to be made in hindsight, but in their political environment it was never going to happen. Rome, as impressive as it was, had a small political class of movers and shakers who owned most of the wealth, and to those people if given more money they'd just buy more farmland. That's it. Literally, to them, the Roman political elite, the only way to invest money was buy farms. I think in today's day and age we're in a similar conundrum. Obviously it's more nuanced and sophisticated than where the Romans were at, but most of the people who have power today can't understand or imagine the benefit of improving the world. The market isn't magically selecting for those things because they are a large part of the market.
- pygy_ 3y ago
  The market favors the market. Capital begets capital. Humans are at best an afterthought.
  - golergka 3y ago
    Humans are the ones who own and deploy capital. It's ordinary people's savings and pensions. But people like to invent boogymen so that they don't have to take responsibility for their action, so they blame wall street and conveniently forget that its their own money that wall street is managing.
    - asimpletune 3y ago
      Why does there have to be anyone held responsible at all? Couldn’t it be possible that given the present day’s circumstances everybody just does the best they can, and, nonetheless, it leads to regrettable results? My example of Rome earlier want meant to point to their political elite as a Boogeyman. I meant it more like despite their best efforts an Industrial Revolution was virtually impossible in that environment. Funny enough having slaves and oligarchy was exactly the kind of thing that held Rome back. I mean only to imply that in todays day and age, we have our version of that same situation, and similarly there is untold prosperity forever waiting to happen until the status quo changes.
      - rchaud 3y ago
        > Why does there have to be anyone held responsible at all? Because they were granted power, and responsibility was the other half of that equation.
        pygy_ 3y ago
        Someone's having a "Are we the baddies?" moment :-)
    - cmmeur01 3y ago
      Ordinary people don’t have savings and pensions, at least not in the US.
TeMPOraL 3y ago
Indeed. The investors and boards care not about total amount od wealth a venture could generate, but about the amount they can capture. A $100B benefit to the world, of which the people involved can capture only $1K is useless, compared to $10M world benefit of which they can capture $9M (and the preferred one is the one which earns them $100M while giving the world negative $1B).

tomjen3 3y ago

With the amount of money I spent on my car (which is not a lot compared to what most people spend) I could have saved several people by donating to givewell, at a comparatively trivial inconvinience of having to bicycle/take the bus to work. But I didn't, because the money is mine to do with as I please. Just like the billionairs money is theirs to do with as they please.

roflyear 3y ago
Technically correct, but can be applied to a lot of things that were technically correct: - Land was the Lord's to do with as they pleased - Slaves were the owner's to do with as they pleased etc.. if the wealth is gathered through exploitation, I think it is appropriate to criticize how that wealth is being used. Hell, it's appropriate to just criticize the wealth, I think. But these things are shades of gray and rarely as clear-cut as slavery. For example, let's say you're the only job in XYZ town. People aren't forced to work there, but they kinda gotta. Things are not so simple in most cases.