3 ms·

I hate this game. I hate that Sam Altman publicly supported Trump (both financially and by showing up). Maybe I hate that he "had" to do this for the sake of hi

I hate this game. I hate that Sam Altman publicly supported Trump (both financially and by showing up). Maybe I hate that he "had" to do this for the sake of his company, or maybe I hate that he _didn't_ have to do it and is a hypocrite. Maybe I just hate how easily laws can be shaped by $1M and a few nice words. Either way, I hate that it worked.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jokethrowaway 2y ago
centralising power never works well for the good of society
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  That's correct. Voluntary association advocated by anarchy is the only truly free social model.
  - UncleEntity 2y ago
    I heard rumblings about some sort of system where power is shared equally across three branches of government with checks and balances to ensure one branch doesn't go rogue and just do whatever they want. Forget what they called it, united something or other.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      Well, the people who designed that system were very skeptical of political parties in general, and thought they could be avoided. Turns out that this isn't true, and once you have parties, they can in fact capture all three branches of government, and then those "checks and balances" kinda stop working.
      - UncleEntity 2y ago
        Yeah, I think that is unfortunately the fate of all political systems. Maybe our AI overlords will do a better job this time if they are unconstrained from any lawful oversight. I mean, one can hope...
        kelseyfrog 2y ago
        In fact, that's not too far away from our current trajectory. Algorithmically enforced sovereign oversight is part of the patchwork state and Yarvinism specifically.
    - slt2021 2y ago
      whatever you had in mind, thats definitely not the USA, where money/lobbying and inter-partisan corruption trump everything
- danans 2y ago
  It's not true that it never works. Centralizing production goals, decision making, and expenditure at the Federal government is what made the industrial response to WW2 successful. Centralizing tax revenue to fund retirements for the elderly (Social Security) resulted in the poverty rate of seniors being brought far lower. Centralizing zoning control at the state of California is _finally_ starting to make localities take responsibility for building more housing. These were/are centralizing efforts with the intent of helping the masses over the wealthy few. What doesn't work is centralizing power with the intent of concentrating wealth and security by taking wealth, labor, and security from working people, AKA extractive institutions. That's true whether it's the donor-class funded political establishment or regimes like the current US kleptocracy doing it.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    Problem is, once you centralize, that remains in place for a long time, but the original intent, even if it was genuine, rarely outlives the people who implemented it for long. Generally speaking, every point of centralization is also a point where a lot of power can be acquired with relatively little resources. So regardless of intent, it attracts people who are into power, and over time, they take over. The original intent often remains symbolically and in the rhetoric used, but when you look beyond that into the actual policies, they are increasingly divorced from what is actually claimed.
    - danans 2y ago
      > Generally speaking, every point of centralization is also a point where a lot of power can be acquired with relatively little resources This is why (1) shared principles and (2) credible democracy is important, to allow evolution of the centralized power (i.e. government) towards the shared principles, and why its corporate-bribed facsimile or oligarchic authoritarianism don't work.
      - int_19h 2y ago
        Credibility of democracy breaks down as you scale upward (which you have to do if you want to centralize). Any representative democracy in which the representative doesn't know all the people they represent is already suspect, but when you get to the point where a single guy supposedly represents hundreds of thousands or even millions, it's kinda obvious that there's no meaningful representation involved. The only way to avoid that is to grow the parliament instead to the point where it ceases to function as a deliberative assembly (and then what's the point of it?). Or you can have a bunch of smaller assemblies that actually are representative, and then a larger one to which assemblies delegate their own to cooperate. But that's exactly political decentralization - a multi-level federation.
- Xelynega 2y ago
  Interesting way to put it after seeing a very specific "centralizing of power", that being the people with the most capital making the decisions. Why would centralizing power in a different way(e.x. democratically) not lead to a different outcome than centralizing power in the way we do now?
  - jokethrowaway 2y ago
    I don't think someone with more capital should be able to make the decisions That's what we're getting with "democracy" because ultimately swaying the opinion of a lot of people (in this technological time) requires money. No wonder the powerful elite or their puppets end up making decision for the majority. No, what I advocate for is for decentralisation of power, I don't want any central entity making choices for me. Someone with capital should be able to offer to buy me out but they shouldn't be able to tax me or decide what happens to me or my property.
Cheer2171 2y ago
> I hate this game. This is tech. This is how it has always been. From Archemedes to DaVinci to Edison to Ford, technologists are always captured to serve the interests of those in power. Most modern technologists don't want to believe this. They grew up building an Internet that had a bit of countercultural flair to it and undermined a few subsets of entrenched elites (mass media, taxi cartels, etc.), so they convinced themselves that they could control society under their wise hands. Except the same thing that always happened happened: the powers that be are now treating tech the way tech treats everyone else.
- nwhnwh 2y ago
  Could you please recommend a book about this?
  - corndoge 2y ago
    A Canticle for Leibowitz
  - mystraline 2y ago
    Wealth of Nations (read past pg 50, unlike most current economists) Das kapital, as a critique to Smith's writing. Communist manifesto, to understand the point of the laborer, and not capital. Read about worker cooperatives and democracy in the workplace, including Mondragon corp in Spain. (One of the largest problems we have with any economic system is that none can properly model infinites. The cost of creating new is expensive be it art or science. But cost of copying is effectively 0. I can highlight the problem, but I have no good solution. But OpenAI's response is 'let us ignore copyright law' which wrongs creators.)
- wildpeaks 2y ago
  It made sense to ponder given HN attracts people with the hacker mindset (the drive of curiosity to understand how things work and how to improve them, not merely accepting the status quo as gospel like the dry monkeys) and frustration is a good signal that something could be improved.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jokethrowaway 2y ago

centralising power never works well for the good of society

kelseyfrog 2y ago
That's correct. Voluntary association advocated by anarchy is the only truly free social model.
- UncleEntity 2y ago
  I heard rumblings about some sort of system where power is shared equally across three branches of government with checks and balances to ensure one branch doesn't go rogue and just do whatever they want. Forget what they called it, united something or other.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    Well, the people who designed that system were very skeptical of political parties in general, and thought they could be avoided. Turns out that this isn't true, and once you have parties, they can in fact capture all three branches of government, and then those "checks and balances" kinda stop working.
    - UncleEntity 2y ago
      Yeah, I think that is unfortunately the fate of all political systems. Maybe our AI overlords will do a better job this time if they are unconstrained from any lawful oversight. I mean, one can hope...
      - kelseyfrog 2y ago
        In fact, that's not too far away from our current trajectory. Algorithmically enforced sovereign oversight is part of the patchwork state and Yarvinism specifically.
  - slt2021 2y ago
    whatever you had in mind, thats definitely not the USA, where money/lobbying and inter-partisan corruption trump everything
danans 2y ago
It's not true that it never works. Centralizing production goals, decision making, and expenditure at the Federal government is what made the industrial response to WW2 successful. Centralizing tax revenue to fund retirements for the elderly (Social Security) resulted in the poverty rate of seniors being brought far lower. Centralizing zoning control at the state of California is _finally_ starting to make localities take responsibility for building more housing. These were/are centralizing efforts with the intent of helping the masses over the wealthy few. What doesn't work is centralizing power with the intent of concentrating wealth and security by taking wealth, labor, and security from working people, AKA extractive institutions. That's true whether it's the donor-class funded political establishment or regimes like the current US kleptocracy doing it.
- int_19h 2y ago
  Problem is, once you centralize, that remains in place for a long time, but the original intent, even if it was genuine, rarely outlives the people who implemented it for long. Generally speaking, every point of centralization is also a point where a lot of power can be acquired with relatively little resources. So regardless of intent, it attracts people who are into power, and over time, they take over. The original intent often remains symbolically and in the rhetoric used, but when you look beyond that into the actual policies, they are increasingly divorced from what is actually claimed.
  - danans 2y ago
    > Generally speaking, every point of centralization is also a point where a lot of power can be acquired with relatively little resources This is why (1) shared principles and (2) credible democracy is important, to allow evolution of the centralized power (i.e. government) towards the shared principles, and why its corporate-bribed facsimile or oligarchic authoritarianism don't work.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      Credibility of democracy breaks down as you scale upward (which you have to do if you want to centralize). Any representative democracy in which the representative doesn't know all the people they represent is already suspect, but when you get to the point where a single guy supposedly represents hundreds of thousands or even millions, it's kinda obvious that there's no meaningful representation involved. The only way to avoid that is to grow the parliament instead to the point where it ceases to function as a deliberative assembly (and then what's the point of it?). Or you can have a bunch of smaller assemblies that actually are representative, and then a larger one to which assemblies delegate their own to cooperate. But that's exactly political decentralization - a multi-level federation.
Xelynega 2y ago
Interesting way to put it after seeing a very specific "centralizing of power", that being the people with the most capital making the decisions. Why would centralizing power in a different way(e.x. democratically) not lead to a different outcome than centralizing power in the way we do now?
- jokethrowaway 2y ago
  I don't think someone with more capital should be able to make the decisions That's what we're getting with "democracy" because ultimately swaying the opinion of a lot of people (in this technological time) requires money. No wonder the powerful elite or their puppets end up making decision for the majority. No, what I advocate for is for decentralisation of power, I don't want any central entity making choices for me. Someone with capital should be able to offer to buy me out but they shouldn't be able to tax me or decide what happens to me or my property.

Cheer2171 2y ago

> I hate this game. This is tech. This is how it has always been. From Archemedes to DaVinci to Edison to Ford, technologists are always captured to serve the interests of those in power. Most modern technologists don't want to believe this. They grew up building an Internet that had a bit of countercultural flair to it and undermined a few subsets of entrenched elites (mass media, taxi cartels, etc.), so they convinced themselves that they could control society under their wise hands. Except the same thing that always happened happened: the powers that be are now treating tech the way tech treats everyone else.

nwhnwh 2y ago
Could you please recommend a book about this?
- corndoge 2y ago
  A Canticle for Leibowitz
- mystraline 2y ago
  Wealth of Nations (read past pg 50, unlike most current economists) Das kapital, as a critique to Smith's writing. Communist manifesto, to understand the point of the laborer, and not capital. Read about worker cooperatives and democracy in the workplace, including Mondragon corp in Spain. (One of the largest problems we have with any economic system is that none can properly model infinites. The cost of creating new is expensive be it art or science. But cost of copying is effectively 0. I can highlight the problem, but I have no good solution. But OpenAI's response is 'let us ignore copyright law' which wrongs creators.)
wildpeaks 2y ago
It made sense to ponder given HN attracts people with the hacker mindset (the drive of curiosity to understand how things work and how to improve them, not merely accepting the status quo as gospel like the dry monkeys) and frustration is a good signal that something could be improved.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]