6 ms·

some people want to make money, others want to improve social progress. Happy to clarify which is who and who is which.

by cyanydeez 4mo ago

radial_symmetry 4mo ago
You can do both
- folkrav 4mo ago
  Sure. 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 4mo ago
  You can do both, until you can't, and then usually making money trumps social progress.
- blitzar 4mo ago
  Sure 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 4mo ago
  Then go and do
watwut 4mo ago
No one involved in LLMs want to improve social progress. That is simply not part of the equasion.
- simondotau 4mo ago
  Social 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 4mo 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 4mo ago
      Political 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 4mo ago
        Political movements we are talking about were result of rapidly worsening living conditions for large groups of people. They did not necessary followed technological progress, technological progress was not necessary condition for their existence. Nor were they result of a new abundance. > When considering prosperity, it's important to emphasise what's real. Yes. And what did actually happened in the past. > So what if Warren Buffett owns a massive number of shares in notionally highly valued corporations? Meanwhile, Warren Buffett : "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." The accumulation of power and money by smaller group of people means loss of power by the rest people. Those with power then use it to their own benefit while rest of us dont have that option. This result in the small group having even more power, while needs and wants of the rest of us are ignored. In turn, it means worsening conditions for the people on the loosing side. And you see this process happening as we speak here. You see it at political decisions being made by the administration, at climate change approach, at unaccountability of the Epstein group of friends, at wars for oil, at decay of the democracy. Materially you see K shaped economy, in us being unable to buy RAM and electronics, loosing rights, loosing control of devices to the corporations, basic necessities getting more expensive and so on.

some people want to make money, others want to improve social progress. Happy to clarify which is who and who is which.

radial_symmetry 4mo ago

You can do both

folkrav 4mo ago
Sure. 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 4mo ago
You can do both, until you can't, and then usually making money trumps social progress.
blitzar 4mo ago
Sure 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 4mo ago
Then go and do

watwut 4mo ago

No one involved in LLMs want to improve social progress. That is simply not part of the equasion.

simondotau 4mo ago
Social 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 4mo 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 4mo ago
    Political 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 4mo ago
      Political movements we are talking about were result of rapidly worsening living conditions for large groups of people. They did not necessary followed technological progress, technological progress was not necessary condition for their existence. Nor were they result of a new abundance. > When considering prosperity, it's important to emphasise what's real. Yes. And what did actually happened in the past. > So what if Warren Buffett owns a massive number of shares in notionally highly valued corporations? Meanwhile, Warren Buffett : "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." The accumulation of power and money by smaller group of people means loss of power by the rest people. Those with power then use it to their own benefit while rest of us dont have that option. This result in the small group having even more power, while needs and wants of the rest of us are ignored. In turn, it means worsening conditions for the people on the loosing side. And you see this process happening as we speak here. You see it at political decisions being made by the administration, at climate change approach, at unaccountability of the Epstein group of friends, at wars for oil, at decay of the democracy. Materially you see K shaped economy, in us being unable to buy RAM and electronics, loosing rights, loosing control of devices to the corporations, basic necessities getting more expensive and so on.