TFYS

17 ms·

211.
by TFYS 2y ago
> Nihilism and predestination lead to some orettt dark places. I think it's the other way around. Because as a society we believe in free will, we easily ignore the effect of environment on our choices. We let social media companies
212.
by TFYS 2y ago
> To continue with claims of no free will you end up needing to start appealing to some sort of a butterfly effect of environment. The differences between the lives of even identical twins in the same environment are a lot more than a fl
213.
by TFYS 3y ago
We can't stop it, but if the leading countries regulate it progress will be slower.
214.
by TFYS 3y ago
The closer to human abilities AI gets, the less space there will be for new jobs to appear. Just because new jobs appeared before doesn't mean they always will. It does make sense to slow down this progress if we don't have answer
215.
by TFYS 3y ago
I'm not so sure about that. How many of the services and products we consume today actually increase our quality of life instead of just giving a small dopamine boost that before you would've gotten from simpler things?
216.
by TFYS 3y ago
Getting people to pay for something isn't the same thing as making the world a better place. You'd need to figure out all the effects and costs of the service to know if you're doing good or bad. Tobacco companies sell things
217.
by TFYS 3y ago
But don't we have that trait already in some form? Some people want kids, others don't. The traits that make a person more likely to want kids will become more common. If we don't have such a trait and the decision to have ki
218.
by TFYS 3y ago
It is biological. Before birth control the desire to have sex was enough to make sure enough kids were had. Socioeconomic circumstances didn't really matter. Unless you were on the brink of starvation, you wanted to have sex. Now that
219.
by TFYS 3y ago
We haven't escaped any biological imperative. We still have sex. The desire to have sex is the biological imperative that produces offspring, and we haven't lost that. It's because we invented birth control that now the desir
220.
by TFYS 3y ago
You can make it a bit less depressing by thinking on the scale of the universe. Life on this planet has at most a billion years left, after that it's gone even if humans never existed. Humans are likely the only species that can save a
221.
by TFYS 3y ago
I don't think it would be hard to collectively agree to take less money or reduce everyones hours if the alternative is to lose the business entirely. You could use majority voting to prevent a single person from sabotaging the busines
222.
by TFYS 3y ago
No power? What do you call the ability to control what thousands of people do with their time? Ownership is power. Capital is power. Most of that wealth wouldn't exist without all the people who worked for their companies to create it.
223.
by TFYS 3y ago
Do you like centralized power? Would you like to live in a dictatorship? Because that's what inequality taken to the extreme is. So unless you do like those things, you should care about inequality.
224.
by TFYS 3y ago
They didn't create that wealth, they were just in a position of power that enabled them to take a portion of the wealth created by many others. The wealth actually created by the contribution of these men doesn't have much to do w
225.
by TFYS 3y ago
While I'm sure Hayek was correct in his time, I wonder if it would now be possible to construct a better way to allocate resources than the price mechanism. Every person now has a device in their pocket with which to instantly communic
226.
by TFYS 3y ago
Isn't our understanding or model of the world just what images, sounds, smells, tastes and physical feelings are likely to appear in a certain context? Obviously a language model doesn't yet have access to all the data humans have
227.
by TFYS 3y ago
So if you didn't build the house, no one would've and people would live on the streets? No, people need a place to stay and the house would get built even if renting was impossible. We would just figure out different ways to pool
228.
by TFYS 4y ago
Letting the people with wealth and power use an alternative system would be the same thing as killing the public system. No one with the ability to improve the system would have the incentive to. It's the reason public schools aren&#x2
229.
by TFYS 4y ago
Don't you think leaving education to the free market would make it harder for kids from poor backgrounds to go up in life? When everyone uses the same system, it's in everyone's best interest to fund it and make it as good as
230.
by TFYS 5y ago
Sure, it takes other things than income into consideration as well, but it's probably better that way if you really want to understand how easy it is to improve your life in each country. They do consider income as well: "In Denm
231.
by TFYS 5y ago
Looks like most of Europe has better social mobility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index
232.
by TFYS 5y ago
The US supports all kinds of non-democratic groups when it benefits them, though. Most likely the reason is just that they don't want to lose any power to China.
233.
by TFYS 5y ago
No, it's people deciding what will and won't receive funding. It's not that much different from today, where people vote with their money. The number of votes would just be the same for everyone. It could even result in bette
234.
by TFYS 5y ago
You assume representative democracy is the only way to make democratic decisions. With our current technology we could make such decisions using direct democracy. Imagine a collectively owned bank with a democratic decision-making process.
235.
by TFYS 5y ago
> I think intelligence starts when the internal system controlling behavior develops a model of the outside environment and operates on it to drive decisions. But isn't that what one of the studied fungi did? To make a decision to g
236.
by TFYS 5y ago
> Advertising is actually about educating the consumer for many products This is so obviously false. If education was the goal of advertising, ads would inform about the negative sides of the products as well. I've never seen that.
237.
by TFYS 5y ago
The rewards don't have to be small if everyone in the country participates in the pool through taxes. Maybe not in the billions like in the current system, but plenty big enough to encourage people that have ideas. The risk part is a p
238.
by TFYS 5y ago
Why not? He would have another idea and try to get another reward for that. If it's the biggest possible reward that you can get, and you have an idea, why wouldn't you try to implement it? The rewards for a successful business 50
239.
by TFYS 5y ago
Is ownership the thing that motivates people to innovate? I don't think so. People don't innovate because they may get to own a company, they innovate because they get an idea and implementing that idea successfully may get them a
240.
by TFYS 5y ago
The solution is to go beyond a competition based society. No matter how good the people running these companies are or want to be, competition will force their hand to create things like this. If it's not them, it'll be someone el

More ›