4 ms·

The system works? The original bill was a going-nowhere, feel-good sop for chumps, the chumps were placated, the bill served its purpose, everyone moved on. Im

The system works? The original bill was a going-nowhere, feel-good sop for chumps, the chumps were placated, the bill served its purpose, everyone moved on. Imagine a world where random crusading busybodies were actually given the power to interfere with every random business deal that made them feel sad, like some sort of HOA for the economy.

colechristensen 1y ago
>Imagine a world where random crusading busybodies were actually given the power to interfere with every random business deal that made them feel sad, like some sort of HOA for the economy. Imagine if... Congress had the power to regulate commerce? I really can't tell if you're joking.
- idle_zealot 1y ago
  Disdain for "interference" in the "free market" is a pretty bog-standard viewpoint among Americans. Has been since Reagan. There is a deeply-ingrained view that the market is optimally efficient (for what?) and any attempt to regulate or direct it will result in inefficiency at best, and deep structural problems at worst. This belief is totally free-standing, built on rhetoric alone, and obviously wrong (you literally cannot make a free market, it's not a coherent concept). Policies inspired by this thinking are uniformly disastrous, but all failings are blamed on the remaining regulatory framework and used as pretense to further accelerate wealth accumulation. This pervasive ideology has been eroding the US's capacity to function for decades, and we've finally begun buckling under the weight of the wealth gap it created. I hold no confidence that should we somehow recover that we'll learn our lesson. Perhaps once a few more liberal democracies fall the remaining ones will finally begin to protect themselves.
  - milesrout 1y ago
    >There is a deeply-ingrained view that the market is optimally efficient (for what?) and any attempt to regulate or direct it will result in inefficiency at best, and deep structural problems at worst. No the view is that there are some necessary forms of regulatory intervention, some that are harmful, and a grey area where it depends on your priorities (are you optimising for economic growth, or are you optimising for, say, environmental protection at the cost of growth; both are valid.) Only a tiny fringe of weirdo anarcho-capitalists think there should be zero government intervention in the economy. Treating any free market liberal as having equivalent views is a ridiculous straw man. >This belief is totally free-standing, built on rhetoric alone, and obviously wrong (you literally cannot make a free market, it's not a coherent concept). God talk about the irony. You haven't made a single logical argument in your whole post. Your post is pure ideology. Making bare assertions like "you literally cannot make a free market" or "policies inspired by this are uniformly disastrous" isn't an argument. It is unsubstantiated rubbish. >Policies inspired by this thinking are uniformly disastrous People that say this sort of thing have no idea how horrible life was when everything in society was heavily regulated. Do you have any idea how inefficient goods delivery across the US was before trucking was deregulated? Sadly it didn't get done at the state level to the same extent. The result is that it is now cheaper in many cases to have things delivered from outside your state even though it is further away. >and we've finally begun buckling under the weight of the wealth gap it created. Nothing is buckling. A "wealth gap" doesn't matter. What matter is absolute levels of wealth. It sounds like you would rather everyone be equally impoverished than for some to be rich and others to be extremely rich. The average person today - even the average poor person today - is extraordinarily rich by historical standards. That is entirely because of free markets. This is economic history 101.
  - colechristensen 1y ago
    No, it was just a snarky garbage comment. You could make the same comment about literally everything the government does comparing it to petty busybody HOA "government", in this case conflating an enumerated power of the US Congress (regulating commerce) with whatever bored HOA rulemaker who wants to fine you for garbage bins or your paint color or whatever other petty nonsense.
- bcoates 1y ago
  California Assembly, and they do have that power, and they just used that power and the answer was "lol no we don't care if you want to waste your own money that's fine"
rocqua 1y ago
The system told people, you are investing in a non-profit. Ut told the outside world 'we are acting as a non profit, for good of humanity. Now that the donations are in, the goodwill from users and regulators have been harvested. It seems like open ai is effectively pulling the rug on everyone who acted on the assumption that open ai was a non profit. The system should, generally, prevent rug pulls. Besides, the most charitable reading here is "if we can't distribute profits, we can't fund ourselves" which doesn't fit the 100x payput cap. It seems instead a mix of the potential profit being too juicy, and a desire to change course to less ethical operation. It certainly isn't obvious the system should allow this. Nor is it obvious this is just 'a business deal'.
idle_zealot 1y ago
Yeah, how horrible it would be if people were allowed to decide what was fair or unfair in business based on flighty human emotions. The economy must be run by pure logic as ordained by our betters and the invisible and all-knowing hand of the market. It didn't feel right that a nonprofit could hand over power it promised to steward for the benefit of all to a for-profit company designed to extract value from it, but actually that's just good business and it's more important to let the richest people on Earth do whatever they want than listen to the silly plebeians who want to hold them to their word. If they were in the right surely they'd be the ones running the company valued at $300B.

colechristensen 1y ago

>Imagine a world where random crusading busybodies were actually given the power to interfere with every random business deal that made them feel sad, like some sort of HOA for the economy. Imagine if... Congress had the power to regulate commerce? I really can't tell if you're joking.

idle_zealot 1y ago
Disdain for "interference" in the "free market" is a pretty bog-standard viewpoint among Americans. Has been since Reagan. There is a deeply-ingrained view that the market is optimally efficient (for what?) and any attempt to regulate or direct it will result in inefficiency at best, and deep structural problems at worst. This belief is totally free-standing, built on rhetoric alone, and obviously wrong (you literally cannot make a free market, it's not a coherent concept). Policies inspired by this thinking are uniformly disastrous, but all failings are blamed on the remaining regulatory framework and used as pretense to further accelerate wealth accumulation. This pervasive ideology has been eroding the US's capacity to function for decades, and we've finally begun buckling under the weight of the wealth gap it created. I hold no confidence that should we somehow recover that we'll learn our lesson. Perhaps once a few more liberal democracies fall the remaining ones will finally begin to protect themselves.
- milesrout 1y ago
  >There is a deeply-ingrained view that the market is optimally efficient (for what?) and any attempt to regulate or direct it will result in inefficiency at best, and deep structural problems at worst. No the view is that there are some necessary forms of regulatory intervention, some that are harmful, and a grey area where it depends on your priorities (are you optimising for economic growth, or are you optimising for, say, environmental protection at the cost of growth; both are valid.) Only a tiny fringe of weirdo anarcho-capitalists think there should be zero government intervention in the economy. Treating any free market liberal as having equivalent views is a ridiculous straw man. >This belief is totally free-standing, built on rhetoric alone, and obviously wrong (you literally cannot make a free market, it's not a coherent concept). God talk about the irony. You haven't made a single logical argument in your whole post. Your post is pure ideology. Making bare assertions like "you literally cannot make a free market" or "policies inspired by this are uniformly disastrous" isn't an argument. It is unsubstantiated rubbish. >Policies inspired by this thinking are uniformly disastrous People that say this sort of thing have no idea how horrible life was when everything in society was heavily regulated. Do you have any idea how inefficient goods delivery across the US was before trucking was deregulated? Sadly it didn't get done at the state level to the same extent. The result is that it is now cheaper in many cases to have things delivered from outside your state even though it is further away. >and we've finally begun buckling under the weight of the wealth gap it created. Nothing is buckling. A "wealth gap" doesn't matter. What matter is absolute levels of wealth. It sounds like you would rather everyone be equally impoverished than for some to be rich and others to be extremely rich. The average person today - even the average poor person today - is extraordinarily rich by historical standards. That is entirely because of free markets. This is economic history 101.
- colechristensen 1y ago
  No, it was just a snarky garbage comment. You could make the same comment about literally everything the government does comparing it to petty busybody HOA "government", in this case conflating an enumerated power of the US Congress (regulating commerce) with whatever bored HOA rulemaker who wants to fine you for garbage bins or your paint color or whatever other petty nonsense.
bcoates 1y ago
California Assembly, and they do have that power, and they just used that power and the answer was "lol no we don't care if you want to waste your own money that's fine"

rocqua 1y ago

The system told people, you are investing in a non-profit. Ut told the outside world 'we are acting as a non profit, for good of humanity. Now that the donations are in, the goodwill from users and regulators have been harvested. It seems like open ai is effectively pulling the rug on everyone who acted on the assumption that open ai was a non profit. The system should, generally, prevent rug pulls. Besides, the most charitable reading here is "if we can't distribute profits, we can't fund ourselves" which doesn't fit the 100x payput cap. It seems instead a mix of the potential profit being too juicy, and a desire to change course to less ethical operation. It certainly isn't obvious the system should allow this. Nor is it obvious this is just 'a business deal'.

idle_zealot 1y ago

Yeah, how horrible it would be if people were allowed to decide what was fair or unfair in business based on flighty human emotions. The economy must be run by pure logic as ordained by our betters and the invisible and all-knowing hand of the market. It didn't feel right that a nonprofit could hand over power it promised to steward for the benefit of all to a for-profit company designed to extract value from it, but actually that's just good business and it's more important to let the richest people on Earth do whatever they want than listen to the silly plebeians who want to hold them to their word. If they were in the right surely they'd be the ones running the company valued at $300B.