5 ms·

Why are you asking questions about their PR department coordinated "Company missions"? Let me summarise their real missions: 1. Power and money 2. Power and

Why are you asking questions about their PR department coordinated "Company missions"? Let me summarise their real missions: 1. Power and money 2. Power and money 3. Power and money How does AI help them make money and gain more power? I can give you a few ways...

veegee 1y ago
[flagged]
iknowstuff 1y ago
To be even more specific, the company making money is merely a proxy for the actual goal: increased valuation for stockowners. Subtle but very significant difference
- hinkley 1y ago
  Because a CEO with happy shareholders has more power. The shareholder value thing is a sop, and sometimes a dangerous one. We keep trying to progressively tax money in the US to reduce the social imbalance. We can’t figure out how to tax power and the people with power like it that way. If you have power you can get money. But it’s also relatively straightforward to arrange to keep the money that you have. But they don’t really need to.
  - danaris 1y ago
    I mean...what you say is not, in the face of it, false; however... For the past few decades, the ways and the degree to which we have been genuinely trying (at the government level) to "progressively tax money" in the US have been failing and falling, respectively. If we were genuinely serious about the kind of progressive taxation you're talking about, capital gains taxes (and other kinds of taxes on non-labor income) would be much, much higher than standard income tax. As it stands, the reverse is true.
    - hunterpayne 1y ago
      Look into the Laffer curve if you want to know why tax rates are what they are. Basically, using tax avoidance strategies have both a cost (accountants and lawyers) and a risk. Making the tax rate too high and the percentage of the wealthy that choose to utilize tax avoidance strategies increases (also the aggressiveness of those strategies increases). The change in this rate forms a curve with a maximum. There is a tax rate that maximizes tax revenue. That rate is far less than 100%. In fact, US tax rates are probably pretty near those Laffer maximums. Please keep in mind that at these maximums, taxes are still progressive just probably not as much as you want. You really want to make taxes more progressive? Either get rid of SS or make it taxable on all income. SS contributions are by far the least progressive part of the tax code.
      - danaris 1y ago
        I frankly don't believe this. (edit for clarity: the proposition that our current rates are highly likely to be towards the top end of what's feasible, not the existence of such a curve) It's been cited as unshakable truth many times, including just before places like Washington State significantly raised their top tax brackets—and saw approximately zero rich people leave. There's a lot of widely-believed economic theory underlying our current practice that's based on extremely shaky ground. As for how SS taxes are handled, I'm 100% in agreement with you.
        hunterpayne 1y ago
        Rich people don't have to leave a state to use tax avoidance strategies. I live in Washington state. The recent state tax increases have reduced total state tax revenue. That's the point of the Laffer curve, tax rate increases result in less tax revenue. Now exactly the shape of the curve, that's hard to say. But you are obviously past the maximum when a rate increase reduces tax revenue. PS The last several CA (I used to live there) tax increases resulted in decreased tax revenue too.
  - goalieca 1y ago
    > We keep trying to progressively tax money in the US to reduce the social imbalance. The former does not lead to the latter.
hinkley 1y ago
Sometimes they mix it up and go for money and power.
- fragmede 1y ago
  sometimes they manage to meld it into one goal, because money is power.
  - randmeerkat 1y ago
    > sometimes they manage to meld it into one goal, because money is power. Money is a measure of power, but it is not in fact power.
    - mmmm2 1y ago
      True, though money can buy influence and the opportunity to obtain power.
      - jpadkins 1y ago
        the people with all the firepower won't let you buy your own private military (or develop your own weapons systems without being under their control). The end-of-line power (violence) is a closely guarded monopoly.
        churchill 1y ago
        But, on the flip side, coercive power cannot stand on its own without money too. The CCP's Politburo know beyond a doubt that they have coercive power over billionaires like Jack Ma, but they try to accommodate these entrepreneurs who help catalyze economic growth & bring the state more foreign revenue/wealth to fund its coercive machine. America's elected leaders also have power to punish & bring oligarchs to book legally, but they mostly interact symbiotically, exchanging campaign contributions and board seats for preferential treatment, favorable policy, etc. Putin can order any out-of-line oligarch to be disposed of, but the economic & coercive arms of the Russian State still see themselves as two sides of the same coin. So, yes: coercive power can still make billionaires face the wall (Russian revolution, etc.) but they mostly prefer to work together. Money and power are a continuum like spacetime.
hedayet 1y ago
I guess from these cosmetic "company missions" we can make out how OpenAI and Google are envisioning to get that "Power and Money" through AI. But even Meta's PR dept seems clueless on answering "How Meta is going to get more Power and Money through AI"
more_corn 1y ago
By replacing the cost of human labor? By improving the control of human decision making? By consolidating control of economic activity? Just top of the head answers.
nme01 1y ago
If they go after AI, they’ll for sure need power
jonas21 1y ago
Even if we assume you're correct and every company's true mission is to maximize power and money, the stated mission is still useful in helping us understand how they plan to do this. The questions in the original comment were really about the "how", and are still worth considering.
- qsort 1y ago
  Have you considered that people can just say things?
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    But we can still consider the consistency of their story, because they are telling that story to influence the perception of their actions.
    - qsort 1y ago
      The consistency of a mission statement? Are you guys for real? To be clear: I'm not arguing that everyone at OpenAI or Meta is a bad person, I don't think that's true. Most of their employees are probably normal people. But seriously, you have to tell me what you guys are smoking if a mission statement causes you to update in any direction whatsoever. I can hardly think of anything more devoid of content.
      - 1718627440 1y ago
        A lie still tells you what the liar things you should believe of him, in this case what the public is supposed to think of these layoffs.
zkmon 1y ago
Same difference with social media too. I thought Twitter was for micro-blogging, LinkedIn for career-networking, Instagram for pictures, and youtube for video-sharing etc. Now everything boiled down to just a feed of pictures, videos and text. So much for a "network", graph theory, research, ...

veegee 1y ago

[flagged]

iknowstuff 1y ago

To be even more specific, the company making money is merely a proxy for the actual goal: increased valuation for stockowners. Subtle but very significant difference

hinkley 1y ago
Because a CEO with happy shareholders has more power. The shareholder value thing is a sop, and sometimes a dangerous one. We keep trying to progressively tax money in the US to reduce the social imbalance. We can’t figure out how to tax power and the people with power like it that way. If you have power you can get money. But it’s also relatively straightforward to arrange to keep the money that you have. But they don’t really need to.
- danaris 1y ago
  I mean...what you say is not, in the face of it, false; however... For the past few decades, the ways and the degree to which we have been genuinely trying (at the government level) to "progressively tax money" in the US have been failing and falling, respectively. If we were genuinely serious about the kind of progressive taxation you're talking about, capital gains taxes (and other kinds of taxes on non-labor income) would be much, much higher than standard income tax. As it stands, the reverse is true.
  - hunterpayne 1y ago
    Look into the Laffer curve if you want to know why tax rates are what they are. Basically, using tax avoidance strategies have both a cost (accountants and lawyers) and a risk. Making the tax rate too high and the percentage of the wealthy that choose to utilize tax avoidance strategies increases (also the aggressiveness of those strategies increases). The change in this rate forms a curve with a maximum. There is a tax rate that maximizes tax revenue. That rate is far less than 100%. In fact, US tax rates are probably pretty near those Laffer maximums. Please keep in mind that at these maximums, taxes are still progressive just probably not as much as you want. You really want to make taxes more progressive? Either get rid of SS or make it taxable on all income. SS contributions are by far the least progressive part of the tax code.
    - danaris 1y ago
      I frankly don't believe this. (edit for clarity: the proposition that our current rates are highly likely to be towards the top end of what's feasible, not the existence of such a curve) It's been cited as unshakable truth many times, including just before places like Washington State significantly raised their top tax brackets—and saw approximately zero rich people leave. There's a lot of widely-believed economic theory underlying our current practice that's based on extremely shaky ground. As for how SS taxes are handled, I'm 100% in agreement with you.
      - hunterpayne 1y ago
        Rich people don't have to leave a state to use tax avoidance strategies. I live in Washington state. The recent state tax increases have reduced total state tax revenue. That's the point of the Laffer curve, tax rate increases result in less tax revenue. Now exactly the shape of the curve, that's hard to say. But you are obviously past the maximum when a rate increase reduces tax revenue. PS The last several CA (I used to live there) tax increases resulted in decreased tax revenue too.
- goalieca 1y ago
  > We keep trying to progressively tax money in the US to reduce the social imbalance. The former does not lead to the latter.

hinkley 1y ago

Sometimes they mix it up and go for money and power.

fragmede 1y ago
sometimes they manage to meld it into one goal, because money is power.
- randmeerkat 1y ago
  > sometimes they manage to meld it into one goal, because money is power. Money is a measure of power, but it is not in fact power.
  - mmmm2 1y ago
    True, though money can buy influence and the opportunity to obtain power.
    - jpadkins 1y ago
      the people with all the firepower won't let you buy your own private military (or develop your own weapons systems without being under their control). The end-of-line power (violence) is a closely guarded monopoly.
      - churchill 1y ago
        But, on the flip side, coercive power cannot stand on its own without money too. The CCP's Politburo know beyond a doubt that they have coercive power over billionaires like Jack Ma, but they try to accommodate these entrepreneurs who help catalyze economic growth & bring the state more foreign revenue/wealth to fund its coercive machine. America's elected leaders also have power to punish & bring oligarchs to book legally, but they mostly interact symbiotically, exchanging campaign contributions and board seats for preferential treatment, favorable policy, etc. Putin can order any out-of-line oligarch to be disposed of, but the economic & coercive arms of the Russian State still see themselves as two sides of the same coin. So, yes: coercive power can still make billionaires face the wall (Russian revolution, etc.) but they mostly prefer to work together. Money and power are a continuum like spacetime.

hedayet 1y ago

I guess from these cosmetic "company missions" we can make out how OpenAI and Google are envisioning to get that "Power and Money" through AI. But even Meta's PR dept seems clueless on answering "How Meta is going to get more Power and Money through AI"

more_corn 1y ago

By replacing the cost of human labor? By improving the control of human decision making? By consolidating control of economic activity? Just top of the head answers.

nme01 1y ago

If they go after AI, they’ll for sure need power

jonas21 1y ago

Even if we assume you're correct and every company's true mission is to maximize power and money, the stated mission is still useful in helping us understand how they plan to do this. The questions in the original comment were really about the "how", and are still worth considering.

qsort 1y ago
Have you considered that people can just say things?
- 1718627440 1y ago
  But we can still consider the consistency of their story, because they are telling that story to influence the perception of their actions.
  - qsort 1y ago
    The consistency of a mission statement? Are you guys for real? To be clear: I'm not arguing that everyone at OpenAI or Meta is a bad person, I don't think that's true. Most of their employees are probably normal people. But seriously, you have to tell me what you guys are smoking if a mission statement causes you to update in any direction whatsoever. I can hardly think of anything more devoid of content.
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      A lie still tells you what the liar things you should believe of him, in this case what the public is supposed to think of these layoffs.

zkmon 1y ago

Same difference with social media too. I thought Twitter was for micro-blogging, LinkedIn for career-networking, Instagram for pictures, and youtube for video-sharing etc. Now everything boiled down to just a feed of pictures, videos and text. So much for a "network", graph theory, research, ...