4 ms·
> I think there is far more societal harm in trying to codify unresolvable sets of ethics Codification of an unresolvable set of ethics - however imperfect - i
by danans 3y ago
> I think there is far more societal harm in trying to codify unresolvable sets of ethics
Codification of an unresolvable set of ethics - however imperfect - is the only reason we have societies, however imperfect. It's been so since at least the dawn of agriculture, and probably even earlier than that.
- rrr_oh_man 3y agoDo you trust a for profit corporation with the codification?
- danans 3y agoCall me a capitalist, but I trust several of them competing with each other under the enforcement of laws that impose consequences on them if they produce and distribute content that violates said laws.
- asadotzler 3y agoso regulation then?
- danans 3y agoCompetition and regulation
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y agoWait but who codifies the ethics in that setup? Wouldn’t it still be, at best, an agreement among the big players?
- jfyi 3y agoThey seem to be suggesting the market would alongside government regulation to fill any gaps (like the cartels that you seem to be suggesting).
- troyvit 3y agoThis is what I'm starting to love about this ecosystem. There's one dominant player right now but by no means are they guaranteed that dominance. The big-tech oligarchs are playing catch-up. Some of them, like Meta with Llama, are breaking their own rules to do it by releasing open source versions of at least some of their tools. Others like Mistral go purely for the open source play and might achieve a regional dominance that doesn't exist with most big web technologies these days. And all this is just a superficial glance at the market. Honestly I think capitalism has screwed up more than it has helped around the world but this free-for-all is going to make great products and great history.