3 ms·

If the leading private labs attempt to use the government to pull up the ladder under the pretense of "safety" then the response of the people should be to take

If the leading private labs attempt to use the government to pull up the ladder under the pretense of "safety" then the response of the people should be to take such questions out of private hands and nationalize the leading labs. Or they could abide by the precedents they set and learn to compete. They shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.

chadgpt3 13d ago
How can "the people" nationalize a lab? I'm people, how can I do it?
- georgemcbay 13d ago
  > I'm people, how can I do it? Vote (well-informed of the candidate's policies) in every election you can, even the local ones that seem of little consequence. Convince others to vote. Make demands of your elected representatives. You can mail them, call them, etc. The government is the people. The Reagan-era and beyond successful convincing of people that the government is an unchangeable black box made up of shady actors out to destroy everything (see: Republicans still going on about the 'deep state' when they run literally everything) is a big part of how we got to this place. It was a self-fulfilling lie, now coming true as the people who sold the lie start grasping for unending power. But we still have the ability to vote our way out of it. If we continue to fail to do so, then at an evolutionary level we have to consider that we collectively deserve all the bad that comes from it.
  - tehjoker 12d ago
    Voting only changes things when it doesn’t threaten the interests of elites or there is a sufficient counterweight in terms of a competitor nation or a radical labor movement or an uncontrolled armed insurgency. See salvador allende in chile and mitternand in france for examples of voting without sufficient leverage. your regan example occurred during a successful counterattack by capital that started under carter and crushed the labor movement.
    - godwinson__4-8 12d ago
      Not really much of an insight. Sometimes voting changes things, sometimes it doesn't. Naturally it's in the nature of most governments to not wildly change every election. This is usually thought of as an advantage. It's rare a wide majority of the electorate ever actually agrees on anything anyway, and tyranny of the majority or government that is too reactive to popular will is also not desirable. But sometimes things are different, due to external or macro factors as you indicated. Some elections are more consequential than others. That doesn't necessarily mean any one election simply doesn't matter. It's simply good civic hygiene to vote. Think of all the people in red states who vote blue or vice versa in elections they will never win, never mind have their chosen candidate "change things". Does this mean they are fools? I salute them for such a faithful exercise of their civic privileges, that which generations of humans have died for. Your vote doesn't simply lose all value because you didn't get the outcome you wanted. It also doesn't preclude other avenues, like direct action or whatever your supposed alternative is. It's good to vote simply out of civic obligation. Many people who say otherwise seem to merely be complaining that voting doesn't give anyone 100% of what they want. We've seen more and more "insurgent" candidates take over primaries. Increasingly people who complain about politics strike me as engineers who talk instead of build. Complaining about the effectiveness of your vote is like listening to an engineer who is always talking but never ships. Like go run a campaign or solve the problem. What does saying voting doesn't matter solve? It feels like middle school age cynicism masquerading as insight. Politics has actually rarely felt so unsettled in America. Voting is likely more important than ever.
      - tehjoker 12d ago
        Building labor unions is more valuable than voting. I think you should still vote, but understand voting without leverage will result in your candidate bending the knee. An example is Mamdani being elected in NYC, but allowing a known class enemy to run the police.
        godwinson__4-8 12d ago
        Yes, this clarification makes sense and more politicians should also make this explicit, as they often end up disappointing voters who think their civic obligations start and end at the ballot box. A politician who doesn't agitate voters to take direct action in between elections is ultimately one who hopes you really don't pay that much attention to what they are doing. It's always about electioneering or diverting attention elsewhere. It's fine to say voting is merely the bare minimum check on elected officials, as long as you don't encourage anyone to then skip this necessary (albeit preliminary) step.
ctkhn 13d ago
The problem here is you need a trustworthy government for nationalizing to make a difference. The current US admin started with DOGE and a crypto rug pull.
protocolture 12d ago
>If the government supports the leading models then we should protect ourselves by making the government own more of it. Weird, weird weird take. How does any of this work. Like you cant influence the first decision but you can magically influence the second?
- godwinson__4-8 12d ago
  Timing matters. If the labs succeed here they will likely do so by paying off Trump, who doesn't care. In 2028 a maximalist case could then be made to nationalize them. The government actually running them isn't great, but no one ever gets 100% of they want in politics. It's about trafeoffs. If the labs use the current government to pull up the ladder, then the voters should vote for a government to swing hard to punish them. In theory the threat of this should also act as a deterrent. There's nothing weird about this at all. Politics is all about push and pull, carrot and stick. No one has permanent influence over affairs, and no one ever gets 100% of what they want. Yet it is entirely coherent to advocate for something like nationalization or take your pick of threat to private capital if they essentially cheat by pulling up the ladder because they've suddenly decided they don't want to compete.
  - protocolture 12d ago
    >then the voters should vote for a government to swing hard to punish them. Its very unlikely that AI will be on the ballot.
    - godwinson__4-8 12d ago
      Interesting perspective. I've frequently heard the opposite, and I find this convincing. Why do you think AI will not be a major political issue in 2028? Perhaps to level set do you think it is a political issue now? Do you expect it to be less politicized in two years? Why?
      - protocolture 12d ago
        Well Trump is signalling that he is happy to let AI rip. Bernie wants there to be an extreme shutdown of AI immediately. So lets say you had 2 billion dollars of slush and worked for OpenAI and anthropic. You would immediately start to grease the paws of republicans to support just enough regulation to slow your competitors. And you would start to grease the paws of democrats to push for a "Moderate centrist" position away from Bernie, leading towards Regulation. Ice Cream Vendor problem leads you straight into both sides supporting the same moderate regulation that OpenAI/Anthropic will write for them. Keep in mind its going to be a noisy election cycle with Donald Trumps idiot successor vs whatever goofball the democrats vomit up arguing about tariffs, trade partners, healthcare, ICE etc. Democrat falls out of line "You just want China to beat us at AI" Republican falls out of line "You are just a techbro supporting epstein affiliate" Then theres the standard 99% + chance regarding US election promises that people just dont act on it at all. Etc etc etc.

chadgpt3 13d ago

How can "the people" nationalize a lab? I'm people, how can I do it?

georgemcbay 13d ago
> I'm people, how can I do it? Vote (well-informed of the candidate's policies) in every election you can, even the local ones that seem of little consequence. Convince others to vote. Make demands of your elected representatives. You can mail them, call them, etc. The government is the people. The Reagan-era and beyond successful convincing of people that the government is an unchangeable black box made up of shady actors out to destroy everything (see: Republicans still going on about the 'deep state' when they run literally everything) is a big part of how we got to this place. It was a self-fulfilling lie, now coming true as the people who sold the lie start grasping for unending power. But we still have the ability to vote our way out of it. If we continue to fail to do so, then at an evolutionary level we have to consider that we collectively deserve all the bad that comes from it.
- tehjoker 12d ago
  Voting only changes things when it doesn’t threaten the interests of elites or there is a sufficient counterweight in terms of a competitor nation or a radical labor movement or an uncontrolled armed insurgency. See salvador allende in chile and mitternand in france for examples of voting without sufficient leverage. your regan example occurred during a successful counterattack by capital that started under carter and crushed the labor movement.
  - godwinson__4-8 12d ago
    Not really much of an insight. Sometimes voting changes things, sometimes it doesn't. Naturally it's in the nature of most governments to not wildly change every election. This is usually thought of as an advantage. It's rare a wide majority of the electorate ever actually agrees on anything anyway, and tyranny of the majority or government that is too reactive to popular will is also not desirable. But sometimes things are different, due to external or macro factors as you indicated. Some elections are more consequential than others. That doesn't necessarily mean any one election simply doesn't matter. It's simply good civic hygiene to vote. Think of all the people in red states who vote blue or vice versa in elections they will never win, never mind have their chosen candidate "change things". Does this mean they are fools? I salute them for such a faithful exercise of their civic privileges, that which generations of humans have died for. Your vote doesn't simply lose all value because you didn't get the outcome you wanted. It also doesn't preclude other avenues, like direct action or whatever your supposed alternative is. It's good to vote simply out of civic obligation. Many people who say otherwise seem to merely be complaining that voting doesn't give anyone 100% of what they want. We've seen more and more "insurgent" candidates take over primaries. Increasingly people who complain about politics strike me as engineers who talk instead of build. Complaining about the effectiveness of your vote is like listening to an engineer who is always talking but never ships. Like go run a campaign or solve the problem. What does saying voting doesn't matter solve? It feels like middle school age cynicism masquerading as insight. Politics has actually rarely felt so unsettled in America. Voting is likely more important than ever.
    - tehjoker 12d ago
      Building labor unions is more valuable than voting. I think you should still vote, but understand voting without leverage will result in your candidate bending the knee. An example is Mamdani being elected in NYC, but allowing a known class enemy to run the police.
      - godwinson__4-8 12d ago
        Yes, this clarification makes sense and more politicians should also make this explicit, as they often end up disappointing voters who think their civic obligations start and end at the ballot box. A politician who doesn't agitate voters to take direct action in between elections is ultimately one who hopes you really don't pay that much attention to what they are doing. It's always about electioneering or diverting attention elsewhere. It's fine to say voting is merely the bare minimum check on elected officials, as long as you don't encourage anyone to then skip this necessary (albeit preliminary) step.

ctkhn 13d ago

The problem here is you need a trustworthy government for nationalizing to make a difference. The current US admin started with DOGE and a crypto rug pull.

protocolture 12d ago

>If the government supports the leading models then we should protect ourselves by making the government own more of it. Weird, weird weird take. How does any of this work. Like you cant influence the first decision but you can magically influence the second?

godwinson__4-8 12d ago
Timing matters. If the labs succeed here they will likely do so by paying off Trump, who doesn't care. In 2028 a maximalist case could then be made to nationalize them. The government actually running them isn't great, but no one ever gets 100% of they want in politics. It's about trafeoffs. If the labs use the current government to pull up the ladder, then the voters should vote for a government to swing hard to punish them. In theory the threat of this should also act as a deterrent. There's nothing weird about this at all. Politics is all about push and pull, carrot and stick. No one has permanent influence over affairs, and no one ever gets 100% of what they want. Yet it is entirely coherent to advocate for something like nationalization or take your pick of threat to private capital if they essentially cheat by pulling up the ladder because they've suddenly decided they don't want to compete.
- protocolture 12d ago
  >then the voters should vote for a government to swing hard to punish them. Its very unlikely that AI will be on the ballot.
  - godwinson__4-8 12d ago
    Interesting perspective. I've frequently heard the opposite, and I find this convincing. Why do you think AI will not be a major political issue in 2028? Perhaps to level set do you think it is a political issue now? Do you expect it to be less politicized in two years? Why?
    - protocolture 12d ago
      Well Trump is signalling that he is happy to let AI rip. Bernie wants there to be an extreme shutdown of AI immediately. So lets say you had 2 billion dollars of slush and worked for OpenAI and anthropic. You would immediately start to grease the paws of republicans to support just enough regulation to slow your competitors. And you would start to grease the paws of democrats to push for a "Moderate centrist" position away from Bernie, leading towards Regulation. Ice Cream Vendor problem leads you straight into both sides supporting the same moderate regulation that OpenAI/Anthropic will write for them. Keep in mind its going to be a noisy election cycle with Donald Trumps idiot successor vs whatever goofball the democrats vomit up arguing about tariffs, trade partners, healthcare, ICE etc. Democrat falls out of line "You just want China to beat us at AI" Republican falls out of line "You are just a techbro supporting epstein affiliate" Then theres the standard 99% + chance regarding US election promises that people just dont act on it at all. Etc etc etc.