6 ms·
And? Is that a scandal?
by minimaxir 3mo ago
And? Is that a scandal?
- cyanydeez 3mo agosome people want to make money, others want to improve social progress. Happy to clarify which is who and who is which.
- radial_symmetry 3mo agoYou can do both
- folkrav 3mo agoSure. I still don't think it's particularly controversial to acknowledge that the two don't necessarily align either, and that neither really incentivizes the other. Less unanimous and debatable, but many would say they more often do not align than the opposite.
- freehorse 3mo agoYou can do both, until you can't, and then usually making money trumps social progress.
- blitzar 3mo agoSure you can ... simply start by taking donations to benefit all mankind and then once you have done enough of that go private, ipo and join the tres commas club.
- throw1234567891 3mo agoThen go and do
- watwut 3mo agoNo one involved in LLMs want to improve social progress. That is simply not part of the equasion.
- simondotau 3mo agoSocial progress is literally the story of labor saving devices. Creating more with less labor means a society of relative abundance, with more time for education, creativity, leisure and personal growth. Don't be fooled into thinking LLMs are any different to the tractor, the loom, the calculator, or shoe factories in the third world.
- watwut 3mo ago> Social progress is literally the story of labor saving devices. Historically it was not. They are two mostly unrelated things. Creating more with less labor can mean the richest getting richer while middle class becomes poor and poor become hopelessly poor. > Creating more with less labor means a society of relative abundance, with more time for education, creativity, leisure and personal growth. It never meant that, this is fairly tale. We got 40 hours workweek rather then 80 hours workweek because of political movements and fights, not because of technology. Labor saving device, on itself, leads to two outcomes: you work as much as before, but produce more (cue all the burned out overworked ai coders) or you get unemployed desperately looking for new work.
- simondotau 3mo agoPolitical movements influenced how abundance was shared. They did not create that abundance. Production and consumption are directly linked: societies can consume only what they produce. When individuals become more productive, society has more to consume. And indeed there is more. So much more. What you call a "fairy tale" is, thankfully, the world we live in. When considering prosperity, it's important to emphasise what's real. So what if Warren Buffett owns a massive number of shares in notionally highly valued corporations? There are plenty of carrots available in the supermarket, and at an extraordinarily low prices by historical standards. Warren Buffett is not personally consuming some grotesquely disproportionate share of the carrots ... or pretty much any commodity which constitutes real material prosperity.
- watwut 3mo ago
- speedgoose 3mo agoNo, but you are a lot more vulnerable to enshittification and you don’t have the advantages of open source applications. It’s an important criteria to have in mind when you select an application.
- thehamkercat 3mo agoNot a scandal ofc, but people use local models mostly for privacy and using a closed-source, VC-backed app that might change anything in the next update might not be best for privacy
- SOLAR_FIELDS 3mo agoIt also seems weird to be closed source and then market yourself as a tool designed for things that are open
- woadwarrior01 3mo agoNext update? Have you read their privacy policy? https://lmstudio.ai/app-privacy https://lmstudio.ai/app-privacy
- NamlchakKhandro 3mo agoYes. Is that a problem for you comrad?
- felooboolooomba 3mo agoI'm interested in your thought process. How did you get from his initial statement opening of "A friendly reminder ..." to thinking that this was a scandal?
- minimaxir 3mo agoIt's a common discussion trope to imply malfeasance in response to good news, which is a way to non-constructively shut down a conversation particularly without elaboration. In this particular case I legit didn't understand what the OP was actually implying because they did not elaborate.