5 ms·

> You see the de facto as opposed to aspirational rule of law constrain or even non-trivially inconvenience anything with a 1-3T notional value any time recentl

> You see the de facto as opposed to aspirational rule of law constrain or even non-trivially inconvenience anything with a 1-3T notional value any time recently? I read this sentence 3 times and I still don’t know what it means.

tsunamifury 3y ago
No will will hold the richest accountable including trillion dollar corporations. The government simply cannot prosecute what it depends on to exist.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  > The government simply cannot prosecute what it depends on to exist. That has never been truer than in the UK at present, with the Fujitsu Horizon scandal at the Post Office. We'd rather throw 3,500 lives under a bus than investigate a serious problem with a govt. preferred supplier.
benreesman 3y ago
It means the big cap tech companies break the law with impunity now. They launder the commons through some remarkably banal linear algebra and assert copyright on the resulting entropy coding. They smash and partially re-hire and then smash staffing, washing out a bunch of ESOP in the process, timed to the week in many instances, not 15 years after the last time they got popped in Federal court for flagrant wage fixing. They violate Sherman with App Store tariffs at payday loan vig, get popped for that, and fail to perform. They pay OSHA penalties calibrated to a different monetary regime and just ignore it being illegal. Do I really need to keep going? It’s a long list.
- skrebbel 3y ago
  You misunderstand. My comment is not about your argument but about your writing. I don’t understand half the sentences in your response either. I mean how can you “launder the commons”? With linear algebra‽ I think you just mean “rich people and big companies can get away with anything, and I’m against that” but you’re not really helping.
  - benreesman 3y ago
    By launder the commons through linear algebra I mean train foundation models with sufficient capacity to memorize the Internet via a degree of access to the corpus in which the scale renders any notion of competition absurd, most of which is explicitly or implicitly owned by someone or in the public domain, and then assert copyright over the model weights (slightly compressed crawl), openly and flagrantly profiteer on the back thereof, and send Open Philanthropy to go round up a kleptocratic consensus in Washington. Numerous lawsuits are in varying stages of process around this practice, but the one shaping up to be a “test case” is currently looking to be https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-times-open-ai-microsoft-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-t... They broke the first rule of Crime Club.
    - skrebbel 3y ago
      > train foundation models with sufficient capacity to memorize the Internet via a degree of access to the corpus in which the scale renders any notion of competition absurd, most of which is explicitly or implicitly owned by someone or in the public domain, and then You’re just trolling me now right
      - benreesman 3y ago
        There are dozens of high-profile lawsuits taking place. a16z is in the press taking positions on it (with at least some dissent). @pmarca is on the record saying that it will destroy AI if the USPTO steps the wrong way. Moskovitz is spending easily tens of millions of dollars buying up K Street. All of this, including the legal filings are trivially searchable. How is it me that’s trolling you? If you disagree on a technical basis from a position of any sophistication, elaborate. If you think this isn’t serious as a heart attack, read the trade press.
        skrebbel 3y ago
        I'm currently considering various possibilities 1. You're actually trolling. You're writing maximally obtuse prose to poke fun at lefties, which you're actually not. In fact, if @pmarca himself had an HN troll account I'd expect it to look a lot like yours, incl referring to himself as @pmarca. 2. You're capable of writing deeply sophisticated text, with 5 commas per sentence and metaphors for metaphors for what you actually mean, yet you truly, genuinely do not understand the sentence "I do not understand what this means" 3. You're a deeply cynical person, who'd use "I do not understand what this means" as a tactic for undermining the other person's actual argument in a sleazy way, and you think other people would do the same. Either way, I keep saying "I don't understand" and you keep layering on more of the same argument in the same incomprehensible style. Consider that maybe I, really truly, cannot understand what you're writing, and that I'm not the only one. I'm leaning towards 2 - I think you mean well and that you somehow really believe that I disagree with you and need convincing. For what it's worth, I agree with most of the things you wrote that I could understand. I'm a lefty too, I think the bigcos have way too much power.
- lifeisstillgood 3y ago
  I don’t doubt it’s true and I kinda remember some of these - but a list of “crimes large corps have been convicted of” would make a great reference
  - benreesman 3y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust...
    - lifeisstillgood 3y ago
      And I want a pony, and a suitcase of cash :-)
mock-possum 3y ago
Oh good I’m glad I’m not the only one who finds these comments inscrutable.
- benreesman 3y ago
  I’m happy to answer any questions you have about what I meant or clarify any confusing jargon. This set of subjects sits squarely at the intersection of “of public interest”, “fairly technical”, “fast moving”, and “emotionally charged”, so it’s not at all surprising that a set of positions held by a group that hasn’t openly gone from plurality to majority, personified in this instance by yours truly, would generate some driveby chaff. But do ask for clarification if you don’t understand but still care enough to comment?
Intralexical 3y ago
> [Have] You see[n] the de facto [rule of law]— as opposed to [the] aspirational rule of law— constrain, or even non-trivially inconvenience, any[body] with a [$]1-3T notional value any time recently?
- bmicraft 3y ago
  This formatting is surprisingly (to me) more helpful than I would have though. Alternatively the original was just worse than I realized.

tsunamifury 3y ago

No will will hold the richest accountable including trillion dollar corporations. The government simply cannot prosecute what it depends on to exist.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
> The government simply cannot prosecute what it depends on to exist. That has never been truer than in the UK at present, with the Fujitsu Horizon scandal at the Post Office. We'd rather throw 3,500 lives under a bus than investigate a serious problem with a govt. preferred supplier.

benreesman 3y ago

It means the big cap tech companies break the law with impunity now. They launder the commons through some remarkably banal linear algebra and assert copyright on the resulting entropy coding. They smash and partially re-hire and then smash staffing, washing out a bunch of ESOP in the process, timed to the week in many instances, not 15 years after the last time they got popped in Federal court for flagrant wage fixing. They violate Sherman with App Store tariffs at payday loan vig, get popped for that, and fail to perform. They pay OSHA penalties calibrated to a different monetary regime and just ignore it being illegal. Do I really need to keep going? It’s a long list.

skrebbel 3y ago
You misunderstand. My comment is not about your argument but about your writing. I don’t understand half the sentences in your response either. I mean how can you “launder the commons”? With linear algebra‽ I think you just mean “rich people and big companies can get away with anything, and I’m against that” but you’re not really helping.
- benreesman 3y ago
  By launder the commons through linear algebra I mean train foundation models with sufficient capacity to memorize the Internet via a degree of access to the corpus in which the scale renders any notion of competition absurd, most of which is explicitly or implicitly owned by someone or in the public domain, and then assert copyright over the model weights (slightly compressed crawl), openly and flagrantly profiteer on the back thereof, and send Open Philanthropy to go round up a kleptocratic consensus in Washington. Numerous lawsuits are in varying stages of process around this practice, but the one shaping up to be a “test case” is currently looking to be https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-times-open-ai-microsoft-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-t... They broke the first rule of Crime Club.
  - skrebbel 3y ago
    > train foundation models with sufficient capacity to memorize the Internet via a degree of access to the corpus in which the scale renders any notion of competition absurd, most of which is explicitly or implicitly owned by someone or in the public domain, and then You’re just trolling me now right
    - benreesman 3y ago
      There are dozens of high-profile lawsuits taking place. a16z is in the press taking positions on it (with at least some dissent). @pmarca is on the record saying that it will destroy AI if the USPTO steps the wrong way. Moskovitz is spending easily tens of millions of dollars buying up K Street. All of this, including the legal filings are trivially searchable. How is it me that’s trolling you? If you disagree on a technical basis from a position of any sophistication, elaborate. If you think this isn’t serious as a heart attack, read the trade press.
      - skrebbel 3y ago
        I'm currently considering various possibilities 1. You're actually trolling. You're writing maximally obtuse prose to poke fun at lefties, which you're actually not. In fact, if @pmarca himself had an HN troll account I'd expect it to look a lot like yours, incl referring to himself as @pmarca. 2. You're capable of writing deeply sophisticated text, with 5 commas per sentence and metaphors for metaphors for what you actually mean, yet you truly, genuinely do not understand the sentence "I do not understand what this means" 3. You're a deeply cynical person, who'd use "I do not understand what this means" as a tactic for undermining the other person's actual argument in a sleazy way, and you think other people would do the same. Either way, I keep saying "I don't understand" and you keep layering on more of the same argument in the same incomprehensible style. Consider that maybe I, really truly, cannot understand what you're writing, and that I'm not the only one. I'm leaning towards 2 - I think you mean well and that you somehow really believe that I disagree with you and need convincing. For what it's worth, I agree with most of the things you wrote that I could understand. I'm a lefty too, I think the bigcos have way too much power.
lifeisstillgood 3y ago
I don’t doubt it’s true and I kinda remember some of these - but a list of “crimes large corps have been convicted of” would make a great reference
- benreesman 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust...
  - lifeisstillgood 3y ago
    And I want a pony, and a suitcase of cash :-)

mock-possum 3y ago

Oh good I’m glad I’m not the only one who finds these comments inscrutable.

benreesman 3y ago
I’m happy to answer any questions you have about what I meant or clarify any confusing jargon. This set of subjects sits squarely at the intersection of “of public interest”, “fairly technical”, “fast moving”, and “emotionally charged”, so it’s not at all surprising that a set of positions held by a group that hasn’t openly gone from plurality to majority, personified in this instance by yours truly, would generate some driveby chaff. But do ask for clarification if you don’t understand but still care enough to comment?

Intralexical 3y ago

> [Have] You see[n] the de facto [rule of law]— as opposed to [the] aspirational rule of law— constrain, or even non-trivially inconvenience, any[body] with a [$]1-3T notional value any time recently?

bmicraft 3y ago
This formatting is surprisingly (to me) more helpful than I would have though. Alternatively the original was just worse than I realized.