5 ms·

It's primarily a test for obedience. Which leaders respond immediately? Keep them, and put them in positions where there are gaps after eliminating the disobedi

by afpx 2y ago

It's primarily a test for obedience. Which leaders respond immediately? Keep them, and put them in positions where there are gaps after eliminating the disobedient. The secondary goal is to test for what the low hanging fruit are for automation. The end-goal is total automation, but you won't see that for a few years.

poszlem 2y ago
It's also something that sounds very appealing to Trump's base who have little understanding of the government's inner workings, but finally have something concrete that they understand they can point to, to show how "useless bureaucracy is". The Trumpian right is currently exhibiting the same kind of hubris that the previous ruling ideology showed and the same kind of contempt for their fellow countrymen.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Must’ve just missed the ideology tests and purity purges under the previous admin. Could you link to some evidence?
  - MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
    Not the previous admin, but the previous "ruling ideology", i.e. illiberal leftist ideology (usually lumped under "woke", "progressive", or "cancel culture"), which was also authoritarian, intolerant, and involved purity tests that increasingly became impossible to pass. They just didn't have a lock-step candidate who won the executive branch. This whole millennium so far has been a tick-tock of popular illiberal authoritarianism, and this is what it looks like when it wins.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Ah yes, the classic equivalent extremism of the blue hairs on Twitter (who hold approximately zero levers of state power) and the actual elected leader of the other party. One extremist group says insane shit on TikTok, the other runs the FBI. The latter is totally a sensible response to the former.
      - MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
        I don't think they are equivalent. Neither is sensible, and the current situation is worse by at least one order of magnitude. I'm just claiming that the popular ideology of only a few years ago was leftist and had a heavily authoritarian slant. Despite the current ridiculous fight against "woke ideology" and "cancel culture", it's not like it didn't actually exist. And it wasn't just extremist groups saying insane shit on TikTok. People were getting harassed through GitHub, issues were being brigaded, tons of big FOSS projects had some big CoC kerfuffle, then there were the master/slave, git master branch, whitelist/blacklist naming things, demanding renaming of projects, demanding people be fired, etc. Some of these things were reasonable, some were unreasonable, but it's incredibly disingenuous to pretend that it was just "One extremist group says insane shit on TikTok". It was a lot of people effecting a lot of real changes. Notably in FOSS, it was a lot of outsiders coming into a space and telling the people in that space how they were supposed to do their jobs, despite the outsiders not contributing anything other than judgement and not having any stake in it. I definitely see some parallels, even if they aren't equivalent.
        pjc50 2y ago
        > And it wasn't just extremist groups saying insane shit on TikTok. People were getting harassed through GitHub, issues were being brigaded, tons of big FOSS projects had some big CoC kerfuffle, then there were the master/slave, git master branch, whitelist/blacklist naming things, demanding renaming of projects, demanding people be fired, etc All of these things you've mentioned were done by private citizens, members of the general public, exercising their free speech, not elected representatives or anyone in the government. You've made an argument against Twitter.
        MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
        I know that these were done by private citizens. I think you might believe I'm making a point that I'm not. My point is these things existed and did have actual power. They had sway in private organizations, and even questioning them was enough in some situations to be fired. The current movement is reactionary, and was, like it or not, fueled by distaste for the previous push. A lot of people like to pretend like this came from nowhere, in reaction to nothing, and that's simply not true. People here are claiming that all of the current administration's claims are bald-faced lies, and that's also not true. I'm a liberal. I've been complaining about the leftist authoritarian push for years, primarily because it was going to create fuel for a powerful right-wing reactionary movement. I'm pretty surprised by the force and extremity of the current situation, but I'm not at all surprised that it's happening.
- dworkr 2y ago
  Exactly right. Revanchist politics lead to boom/bust debt cycles in government. One party spends way too much and hurts the citizens, the other party uses their mandate to fix the overspending as a pretext to subvert government controls and agencies, and slash and burn in a way that hurts citizens. And 95% of the population blindly, religiously even, suport this and yet don't feel at all responsible for the current state of affairs. "They did it!" seems like the new American ethos.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    National debt growth rates by President: * Clinton (D): +31% over 8 years * Bush (R): +105% over 8 years * Obama (D): +70% over 8 years * Trump (R): +40% over 4 years * Biden (D): +21% over 4 years Simply untrue to suggest "one party spends way too much" or that the other's "slash and burn" is at all related to strengthening our financial situation.
    - dworkr 2y ago
      But that's it. I don't think slash and burn is related to debt, least not directly. That was my whole point. It's revanchist escalatory politics on both sides. When more than a few democrats acknowledge the debt and talk about cutting, and when more than a few republicans talk about increasing taxes, we can make progress. Until then we'll get more partisanship and sctivism, which means more games with the budget and thus more volatility and inefficiency in Washington, to the detriment of all federal workers, but to citizens also. The parties and powers that be are the winners. Everyone else loses. Moderate politics and less change is better for most people on average, certainly better for institutional stability, which is the core issue with DOGE's chainsaw approach to belt tightening.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        I don't disagree with most of this except the continued characterization of this as "belt tightening." It demonstrably has nothing to do with "belt tightening." If it did, the GOP wouldn't need a $4 trillion increase to the debt ceiling.
benwad 2y ago
I wonder which will come first - total government automation, AGI or full self-driving?
- afpx 2y ago
  Heh. Yeah, self-driving has been the laggard which muddles the predictions, right? The way I see it (and probably mostly wrong), is that you can't fund AGI with capitalism. Progress under capitalism is driven by consumer demand. But, at this point, most consumers already have everything they need. So, you need to fund progress a different way. But, Gov spends trillions. All you have to do is direct some of that toward AI development and continuously show decreasing spending. And, as AI gets better, you save more, and you redirect more and more into AI. And, continue that cycle. I'm guessing self-driving is lagging because of social friction. People really like to be in control - enough so that they're willing to risk death (something like 1 in 90 chance of death from driving). Even though automated driving currently is probably safer (and an order of magnitude safer if all vehicles were self-driving).

by afpx 2y ago

poszlem 2y ago

It's also something that sounds very appealing to Trump's base who have little understanding of the government's inner workings, but finally have something concrete that they understand they can point to, to show how "useless bureaucracy is". The Trumpian right is currently exhibiting the same kind of hubris that the previous ruling ideology showed and the same kind of contempt for their fellow countrymen.

llamaimperative 2y ago
Must’ve just missed the ideology tests and purity purges under the previous admin. Could you link to some evidence?
- MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
  Not the previous admin, but the previous "ruling ideology", i.e. illiberal leftist ideology (usually lumped under "woke", "progressive", or "cancel culture"), which was also authoritarian, intolerant, and involved purity tests that increasingly became impossible to pass. They just didn't have a lock-step candidate who won the executive branch. This whole millennium so far has been a tick-tock of popular illiberal authoritarianism, and this is what it looks like when it wins.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Ah yes, the classic equivalent extremism of the blue hairs on Twitter (who hold approximately zero levers of state power) and the actual elected leader of the other party. One extremist group says insane shit on TikTok, the other runs the FBI. The latter is totally a sensible response to the former.
    - MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
      I don't think they are equivalent. Neither is sensible, and the current situation is worse by at least one order of magnitude. I'm just claiming that the popular ideology of only a few years ago was leftist and had a heavily authoritarian slant. Despite the current ridiculous fight against "woke ideology" and "cancel culture", it's not like it didn't actually exist. And it wasn't just extremist groups saying insane shit on TikTok. People were getting harassed through GitHub, issues were being brigaded, tons of big FOSS projects had some big CoC kerfuffle, then there were the master/slave, git master branch, whitelist/blacklist naming things, demanding renaming of projects, demanding people be fired, etc. Some of these things were reasonable, some were unreasonable, but it's incredibly disingenuous to pretend that it was just "One extremist group says insane shit on TikTok". It was a lot of people effecting a lot of real changes. Notably in FOSS, it was a lot of outsiders coming into a space and telling the people in that space how they were supposed to do their jobs, despite the outsiders not contributing anything other than judgement and not having any stake in it. I definitely see some parallels, even if they aren't equivalent.
      - pjc50 2y ago
        > And it wasn't just extremist groups saying insane shit on TikTok. People were getting harassed through GitHub, issues were being brigaded, tons of big FOSS projects had some big CoC kerfuffle, then there were the master/slave, git master branch, whitelist/blacklist naming things, demanding renaming of projects, demanding people be fired, etc All of these things you've mentioned were done by private citizens, members of the general public, exercising their free speech, not elected representatives or anyone in the government. You've made an argument against Twitter.
        MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
        I know that these were done by private citizens. I think you might believe I'm making a point that I'm not. My point is these things existed and did have actual power. They had sway in private organizations, and even questioning them was enough in some situations to be fired. The current movement is reactionary, and was, like it or not, fueled by distaste for the previous push. A lot of people like to pretend like this came from nowhere, in reaction to nothing, and that's simply not true. People here are claiming that all of the current administration's claims are bald-faced lies, and that's also not true. I'm a liberal. I've been complaining about the leftist authoritarian push for years, primarily because it was going to create fuel for a powerful right-wing reactionary movement. I'm pretty surprised by the force and extremity of the current situation, but I'm not at all surprised that it's happening.
dworkr 2y ago
Exactly right. Revanchist politics lead to boom/bust debt cycles in government. One party spends way too much and hurts the citizens, the other party uses their mandate to fix the overspending as a pretext to subvert government controls and agencies, and slash and burn in a way that hurts citizens. And 95% of the population blindly, religiously even, suport this and yet don't feel at all responsible for the current state of affairs. "They did it!" seems like the new American ethos.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  National debt growth rates by President: * Clinton (D): +31% over 8 years * Bush (R): +105% over 8 years * Obama (D): +70% over 8 years * Trump (R): +40% over 4 years * Biden (D): +21% over 4 years Simply untrue to suggest "one party spends way too much" or that the other's "slash and burn" is at all related to strengthening our financial situation.
  - dworkr 2y ago
    But that's it. I don't think slash and burn is related to debt, least not directly. That was my whole point. It's revanchist escalatory politics on both sides. When more than a few democrats acknowledge the debt and talk about cutting, and when more than a few republicans talk about increasing taxes, we can make progress. Until then we'll get more partisanship and sctivism, which means more games with the budget and thus more volatility and inefficiency in Washington, to the detriment of all federal workers, but to citizens also. The parties and powers that be are the winners. Everyone else loses. Moderate politics and less change is better for most people on average, certainly better for institutional stability, which is the core issue with DOGE's chainsaw approach to belt tightening.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      I don't disagree with most of this except the continued characterization of this as "belt tightening." It demonstrably has nothing to do with "belt tightening." If it did, the GOP wouldn't need a $4 trillion increase to the debt ceiling.

benwad 2y ago

I wonder which will come first - total government automation, AGI or full self-driving?

afpx 2y ago
Heh. Yeah, self-driving has been the laggard which muddles the predictions, right? The way I see it (and probably mostly wrong), is that you can't fund AGI with capitalism. Progress under capitalism is driven by consumer demand. But, at this point, most consumers already have everything they need. So, you need to fund progress a different way. But, Gov spends trillions. All you have to do is direct some of that toward AI development and continuously show decreasing spending. And, as AI gets better, you save more, and you redirect more and more into AI. And, continue that cycle. I'm guessing self-driving is lagging because of social friction. People really like to be in control - enough so that they're willing to risk death (something like 1 in 90 chance of death from driving). Even though automated driving currently is probably safer (and an order of magnitude safer if all vehicles were self-driving).