4 ms·

You don't have access because you aren't supposed to. Nothing about the founding, laws or customs of the US suggest that you (nor the government itself) have ac

You don't have access because you aren't supposed to. Nothing about the founding, laws or customs of the US suggest that you (nor the government itself) have access to information about other people/companies any time you/they feel like "finding out what's happening behind the scenes". As for "too important to privatize"... practically all the important work in the world is done by private companies. It wasn't the government who just created vaccines for Covid. It isn't the government producing weapons for defense. It's not Joe B producing houses or electricity or cars or planes. That's not to say the government doesn't do anything but the idea that the dividing line for government work is "super important work" is wildly wrong and it's much closer to the inverse.

romwell 3y ago
>practically all the important work in the world is done by private companies LOL, another one thinks the US is the entire world.
- danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  The comment about access is related to a US company. The relevant legal jurisdiction and framework is the US. If it were a French company, the relevant jurisdiction would be... France. You may not realize this, but OpenAI is a US company. The comment about all the important work in the world being done by private companies was indeed a global comment. You may not realize this, but covid vaccines were made by astrazeneca (UK), BioNTech (Germany), several US companies and others. Defense companies are located in every major economy. Most countries have power systems which are privately owned. Commercial planes are mostly built by one large French company and one large US company. All the large producers of cars around the world are private companies - big ones exist in the US, Japan, various European countries, Korea and China.
  - romwell 3y ago
    It looks like you have a problem understanding the meaning of the word "all". Specifically, you are confusing all and some.
    - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
      "practically all" was the initial statement. The second mention is a reference to that statement. A basic education in economics (and manners) might be in order.
      - romwell 3y ago
        >A basic education in economics (and manners) might be in order. Oh, I apologize. I have idiotism allergies. >"practically all" was the initial statement Yeah, and my original statement still stands. Go open a history book or something. Or find out what "N" in "NSF" stands for, or realize that China exist.
        danielmarkbruce 3y ago
        NSF budget is 10 bill or so out of a 20+ trill economy, less than a tenth of a %. Even if you thought 90% of work wasn't important... 10 bill out of 2 trill is tiny.
        romwell 3y ago
        So you measure importance of work by the amount of money spent on it? My do you have some peculiar ideas.
        danielmarkbruce 3y ago
        Re-read it. I'm measuring the amount of work by the amount of money. Total GDP = total work. 10% of GDP = 10% of total work. GDP is a decent proxy for total work... Add reading comprehension 101 to econ 101 and then it will compute.
        romwell 3y ago
        Re-read what you wrote yourself. You were using the NSF budget as a measure of importance of its work. You also compared it to the GDP, which only makes sense if you think that all work done is equally important. How very socialist of you. >Add reading comprehension 101 to econ 101 and then it will compute What you say "computes" only after adding Dunning-Kruger to the mix.
diggan 3y ago
> Nothing about the founding, laws or customs of the US suggest that you (nor the government itself) have access to information about other people/companies any time you/they feel like "finding out what's happening behind the scenes". Isn't there entire processes about "We suspect they doing something illegal behind the scenes so lets go and check"? Isn't that what search warrants for example is all about? Or senate/congress inquiry or whatever they're called?
- danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  When someone is suspected (with some amount of evidence) of doing something illegal, sure. With respect to inquries - if congressman X asks Sam Altman for the details of an algorithm at a congressional hearing, he is not obliged to answer. He can get his lawyer and argue the case - this happens and cases go to the supreme court to decide whether the question is in scope of the powers granted to congress under the consitution. The question has to be directly applicable to one of the responsibilities of congress, which are enumerated in the constitution. In practice redacted documents, limiting of question scope etc are discussed and worked around. Also in practice it's a bit of a political circus where most questions are for show rather than substance and you'll not really see them ask questions that would result in confidential information been given.
trinsic2 3y ago
Corporations and private establishments only exist if there is a benefit to the public good. We allow them to operate as long as it benefits us. Once that changes then that is a cause for concern and we can revoke there ability to operate within the public sphere. Remember private interest and government operate by consent of the people, not the other way around, contrary to the current status quo.
- danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  Nope, many companies exist where there isn't any public good. This statement is based on fantasy.
  - trinsic2 3y ago
    They are still operating in the public sphere. That's why we have charters for corporations to operate. We allow them to operate in our societies, you're not going to convince anyone otherwise by just saying its different from what we have established in law. Of the people, by the people, for the people.
    - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
      You won't find a single state in the US that has legislation saying a corporation (or LLC, or any of the similar structures) must benefit the public.
      - trinsic2 3y ago
        Charter a written grant by a country's legislative or sovereign power, by which a body such as a company, college, or city is founded and its rights and privileges defined. "the town received a charter from the Emperor" The legislative process for a charter says otherwise. We, the people, define what the government is and by extension what the rights a company has. The fact that states don't enforce the revocation of a company's charter doesn't mean that the power, given by the people, to the government doesn't exist.

romwell 3y ago

>practically all the important work in the world is done by private companies LOL, another one thinks the US is the entire world.

danielmarkbruce 3y ago
The comment about access is related to a US company. The relevant legal jurisdiction and framework is the US. If it were a French company, the relevant jurisdiction would be... France. You may not realize this, but OpenAI is a US company. The comment about all the important work in the world being done by private companies was indeed a global comment. You may not realize this, but covid vaccines were made by astrazeneca (UK), BioNTech (Germany), several US companies and others. Defense companies are located in every major economy. Most countries have power systems which are privately owned. Commercial planes are mostly built by one large French company and one large US company. All the large producers of cars around the world are private companies - big ones exist in the US, Japan, various European countries, Korea and China.
- romwell 3y ago
  It looks like you have a problem understanding the meaning of the word "all". Specifically, you are confusing all and some.
  - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
    "practically all" was the initial statement. The second mention is a reference to that statement. A basic education in economics (and manners) might be in order.
    - romwell 3y ago
      >A basic education in economics (and manners) might be in order. Oh, I apologize. I have idiotism allergies. >"practically all" was the initial statement Yeah, and my original statement still stands. Go open a history book or something. Or find out what "N" in "NSF" stands for, or realize that China exist.
      - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
        NSF budget is 10 bill or so out of a 20+ trill economy, less than a tenth of a %. Even if you thought 90% of work wasn't important... 10 bill out of 2 trill is tiny.
        romwell 3y ago
        So you measure importance of work by the amount of money spent on it? My do you have some peculiar ideas.
        danielmarkbruce 3y ago
        Re-read it. I'm measuring the amount of work by the amount of money. Total GDP = total work. 10% of GDP = 10% of total work. GDP is a decent proxy for total work... Add reading comprehension 101 to econ 101 and then it will compute.
        romwell 3y ago
        Re-read what you wrote yourself. You were using the NSF budget as a measure of importance of its work. You also compared it to the GDP, which only makes sense if you think that all work done is equally important. How very socialist of you. >Add reading comprehension 101 to econ 101 and then it will compute What you say "computes" only after adding Dunning-Kruger to the mix.

diggan 3y ago

> Nothing about the founding, laws or customs of the US suggest that you (nor the government itself) have access to information about other people/companies any time you/they feel like "finding out what's happening behind the scenes". Isn't there entire processes about "We suspect they doing something illegal behind the scenes so lets go and check"? Isn't that what search warrants for example is all about? Or senate/congress inquiry or whatever they're called?

danielmarkbruce 3y ago
When someone is suspected (with some amount of evidence) of doing something illegal, sure. With respect to inquries - if congressman X asks Sam Altman for the details of an algorithm at a congressional hearing, he is not obliged to answer. He can get his lawyer and argue the case - this happens and cases go to the supreme court to decide whether the question is in scope of the powers granted to congress under the consitution. The question has to be directly applicable to one of the responsibilities of congress, which are enumerated in the constitution. In practice redacted documents, limiting of question scope etc are discussed and worked around. Also in practice it's a bit of a political circus where most questions are for show rather than substance and you'll not really see them ask questions that would result in confidential information been given.

trinsic2 3y ago

Corporations and private establishments only exist if there is a benefit to the public good. We allow them to operate as long as it benefits us. Once that changes then that is a cause for concern and we can revoke there ability to operate within the public sphere. Remember private interest and government operate by consent of the people, not the other way around, contrary to the current status quo.

danielmarkbruce 3y ago
Nope, many companies exist where there isn't any public good. This statement is based on fantasy.
- trinsic2 3y ago
  They are still operating in the public sphere. That's why we have charters for corporations to operate. We allow them to operate in our societies, you're not going to convince anyone otherwise by just saying its different from what we have established in law. Of the people, by the people, for the people.
  - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
    You won't find a single state in the US that has legislation saying a corporation (or LLC, or any of the similar structures) must benefit the public.
    - trinsic2 3y ago
      Charter a written grant by a country's legislative or sovereign power, by which a body such as a company, college, or city is founded and its rights and privileges defined. "the town received a charter from the Emperor" The legislative process for a charter says otherwise. We, the people, define what the government is and by extension what the rights a company has. The fact that states don't enforce the revocation of a company's charter doesn't mean that the power, given by the people, to the government doesn't exist.