4 ms·

>would be able to make a lot of money doing so. That’s precisely the elephant in the room. Money is a distortion and filtering lense that makes obvious things

>would be able to make a lot of money doing so. That’s precisely the elephant in the room. Money is a distortion and filtering lense that makes obvious things look inexistent until the wall it renders invisible is hit — at high the highest speed it could reach before that. Reality is extremely poorly summarized within the frame of a single scalar value. >And if you think that "they don't know what's best for them, but I do" - what makes you any better than a member of the economic elite or an out-of-touch PM at Microsoft? First of all, there no necessity to go into a you/I or them/us mindset. Also it’s not because some group don’t know what’s best for themselves that any other group will know better — whatever the label given the this other group: "I" or "too-big-to-fail Inc.". This whole message also seem to assume some kind of full rationalization based on user priorities. But user base to a large extent takes what’s the most obviously thrown at their face. They sometime can tweak their applications if it does give some options to do so, or switch to some alternative if there are not trapped in a defacto oligopoly. Do people want LLMs thrown at their face at every single corner of their digital interactions? Or is the the "throw it at every single surface indiscriminately and see what stick" driven by the hope that something will stick and make the capital venture lottery produce a few winner take it all?

throw10920 7mo ago
> That’s precisely the elephant in the room. Money is a distortion and filtering lense No, money is the most accurate way of measuring value to people that has ever been invented. It quite literally is the least distorted lens you can possibly get. Every single other metric is worse. Aren't you aware of the well-known scientific truism that it's impossible to directly perceive reality, and that all of the indirect methods that we have are imperfect? This is the economic corollary to that. > Reality is extremely poorly summarized within the frame of a single scalar value. Correct. Yet, every sane and reasonably well-educated person knows that money is the least bad single scalar value (that also happens to strongly correlate with businesses remaining solvent and individuals remaining off the streets) that can be used to measure value delivered to individuals, and that there's no alternative scalar value or combination of values that's anywhere close to as well agreed-upon as money. Everything else in your comment is incoherent. "First of all, there no necessity to go into a you/I or them/us mindset." doesn't mean anything.
- psychoslave 7mo ago
  >No, money is the most accurate way of measuring value to people that has ever been invented. It quite literally is the least distorted lens you can possibly get. As they say "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it", which also have many other more flavors.[1] >Aren't you aware of the well-known scientific truism that it's impossible to directly perceive reality, and that all of the indirect methods that we have are imperfect? As human being, we can’t avoid to make errors, including in our representations, if that is what is meant here, then we have an agreement on that point. But as sure as there are no absolute total truth reachable in the frame of human existence, it’s impossible for a human to claim absolute ignorance in total honesty. Money at best is a proxy for binding individuals into social classes. In a sense, sure it does measure some human values. Mostly values of dominating classes. > Yet, every sane and reasonably well-educated person knows that money is the least bad single scalar value Hello, here is an unreasonable poorly-educated person to which class disdain won’t bother them to the point they just keep quite. > there's no alternative scalar value or combination of values that's anywhere close to as well agreed-upon as money. There are of course many possible alternatives. Actually neoliberal capitalism is a very brief moment in human history, even LLMs run by capitalist companies will explain that to anyone interested to ask.[2] Sure money can also be used in different social models, but not all models using money try to inseminate in its social members that it’s the one and sole best indicator of human fulfillment. >Everything else in your comment is incoherent. Once again, an LLM can give some chip feedback on such a matter, at least at the analysis level that LLMs can operate on.[3] [1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/ [2] https://chat.mistral.ai/chat/5fc6465f-05fd-4a83-841f-60f9e5c055e7 https://chat.mistral.ai/chat/5fc6465f-05fd-4a83-841f-60f9e5c... [3] https://chat.mistral.ai/chat/e6fe5224-506d-40ac-857f-e14e56b6145d https://chat.mistral.ai/chat/e6fe5224-506d-40ac-857f-e14e56b...
  - throw10920 7mo ago
    > As they say "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it", which also have many other more flavors.[1] This is a useless, irrelevant, and fallacious thought-terminating cliche that you're using as an attempt to disguise the fact that you have presented no alternative - because you know I'll tear it to shreds if you do. (an LLM comment doesn't count, because they lie and hallucinate, and it's not you responding) > even LLMs run by capitalist companies will explain that to anyone interested to ask.[2] You can't even be bothered to try to think for yourself. "psychoslave" is an extremely apt name for your account. > Money at best is a proxy for binding individuals into social classes. Oh, and there's the politics - you're not interested in debate, you're a propagandist. You're not arguing in good faith (if that wasn't clear enough from the LLM-generated responses, failure to make any sort of coherent argument, and not including a single actual alternative to money as a proxy for measuring value). If you respond, I'll do my best to debunk your arguments for future HN readers, but it's useless to try to convince you while your basic mindset is that you're shilling for a particular political point.

throw10920 7mo ago

> That’s precisely the elephant in the room. Money is a distortion and filtering lense No, money is the most accurate way of measuring value to people that has ever been invented. It quite literally is the least distorted lens you can possibly get. Every single other metric is worse. Aren't you aware of the well-known scientific truism that it's impossible to directly perceive reality, and that all of the indirect methods that we have are imperfect? This is the economic corollary to that. > Reality is extremely poorly summarized within the frame of a single scalar value. Correct. Yet, every sane and reasonably well-educated person knows that money is the least bad single scalar value (that also happens to strongly correlate with businesses remaining solvent and individuals remaining off the streets) that can be used to measure value delivered to individuals, and that there's no alternative scalar value or combination of values that's anywhere close to as well agreed-upon as money. Everything else in your comment is incoherent. "First of all, there no necessity to go into a you/I or them/us mindset." doesn't mean anything.

psychoslave 7mo ago
>No, money is the most accurate way of measuring value to people that has ever been invented. It quite literally is the least distorted lens you can possibly get. As they say "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it", which also have many other more flavors.[1] >Aren't you aware of the well-known scientific truism that it's impossible to directly perceive reality, and that all of the indirect methods that we have are imperfect? As human being, we can’t avoid to make errors, including in our representations, if that is what is meant here, then we have an agreement on that point. But as sure as there are no absolute total truth reachable in the frame of human existence, it’s impossible for a human to claim absolute ignorance in total honesty. Money at best is a proxy for binding individuals into social classes. In a sense, sure it does measure some human values. Mostly values of dominating classes. > Yet, every sane and reasonably well-educated person knows that money is the least bad single scalar value Hello, here is an unreasonable poorly-educated person to which class disdain won’t bother them to the point they just keep quite. > there's no alternative scalar value or combination of values that's anywhere close to as well agreed-upon as money. There are of course many possible alternatives. Actually neoliberal capitalism is a very brief moment in human history, even LLMs run by capitalist companies will explain that to anyone interested to ask.[2] Sure money can also be used in different social models, but not all models using money try to inseminate in its social members that it’s the one and sole best indicator of human fulfillment. >Everything else in your comment is incoherent. Once again, an LLM can give some chip feedback on such a matter, at least at the analysis level that LLMs can operate on.[3] [1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/ [2] https://chat.mistral.ai/chat/5fc6465f-05fd-4a83-841f-60f9e5c055e7 https://chat.mistral.ai/chat/5fc6465f-05fd-4a83-841f-60f9e5c... [3] https://chat.mistral.ai/chat/e6fe5224-506d-40ac-857f-e14e56b6145d https://chat.mistral.ai/chat/e6fe5224-506d-40ac-857f-e14e56b...
- throw10920 7mo ago
  > As they say "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it", which also have many other more flavors.[1] This is a useless, irrelevant, and fallacious thought-terminating cliche that you're using as an attempt to disguise the fact that you have presented no alternative - because you know I'll tear it to shreds if you do. (an LLM comment doesn't count, because they lie and hallucinate, and it's not you responding) > even LLMs run by capitalist companies will explain that to anyone interested to ask.[2] You can't even be bothered to try to think for yourself. "psychoslave" is an extremely apt name for your account. > Money at best is a proxy for binding individuals into social classes. Oh, and there's the politics - you're not interested in debate, you're a propagandist. You're not arguing in good faith (if that wasn't clear enough from the LLM-generated responses, failure to make any sort of coherent argument, and not including a single actual alternative to money as a proxy for measuring value). If you respond, I'll do my best to debunk your arguments for future HN readers, but it's useless to try to convince you while your basic mindset is that you're shilling for a particular political point.