danny_codes

5 ms·

1.
by danny_codes 7d ago
Publicity is good I think. We want the public to understand that very rich people pay less taxes than the average person. I don't think this is commonly understood, because people get caught up on income statistics, which are an incomp
2.
by danny_codes 8d ago
What’s the difference between a software program of sufficient complexity and your brain? There seems to be little difference to me. By this logic, there’s no point in wondering if you are sentient, because your brain runs on the same biolo
3.
by danny_codes 9d ago
We don't know how sentient LLMs are. Nobody understands how they work. There's nothing concrete we can point to that guarantees LLMs don't start "acting on their own".
4.
by danny_codes 9d ago
Yet another reason for land value taxes. It's astonishing how many problems they solve
5.
by danny_codes 10d ago
Well no, if rich people just consumed then the money would flow back into the economy via their consumption. This would generate economic growth. Whether that growth is greater or lesser than their capital investments would presumably be ha
6.
by danny_codes 10d ago
IMO he's extremely clear, just verbose. Though I read the English translation so maybe that's clearer than the French.
7.
by danny_codes 10d ago
> For instance, if you founded a startup that then raised a few million dollars, at a valuation that values your shares at $1M, should your income be treated as $1M for that year, even if it didn't even hit your bank account and can
8.
by danny_codes 10d ago
> Does (or how much does) it matter if any specific percentile group is getting disproportionally richer, given all (or a vast majority of) groups are? Yes it matters very significantly. Rising income/wealth inequality causes all so
9.
by danny_codes 10d ago
So, your argument is that badly implemented wealth taxes lead to capital flight? Sure, we all agree. The solution is pretty obvious, just implement a wealth tax that prevents capital flight. It’s not that hard. The US already taxes its citi
10.
by danny_codes 10d ago
Pathetic. US leadership is trash right now. It’s like a bunch of 3 year olds. Unbelievable.
11.
by danny_codes 11d ago
> It's that we can never allow this technology to advance outside of trusted labs. Impossible. In 10 years you'll be able to train today's models for ~$10M from Moore's law and training innovation. In 20 years it&#x27
12.
by danny_codes 11d ago
100%. American capitalism is broken. So far that illness has given us Trump. So bad, but apparently not a catastrophe (yet). I wonder what comes next (assuming we don't fix it)..
13.
by danny_codes 11d ago
As compute prices fall it gets easier and easier to make "frontier" models. So it's inevitable that commodity, open source models of equivalent capacity to today's "frontier" models will be available to the pub
14.
by danny_codes 13d ago
Counterpoint, who cares? Markets will simply adjust and financial services will arise to smooth instances where liquidation is problematic. The status quo shifts to optimize once taxes change. Our system will do the same. I don’t understand
15.
by danny_codes 13d ago
Plenty of contracts end up being unenforceable.If people think they have a strong case for breaking a contract, they are welcome to do so and see if a judge or jury agrees.
16.
by danny_codes 13d ago
I think it’s laughable to think OpenAI has some special sauce that can’t be replicated easily. They simply have asymmetric access to compute and the dollars to power it. Thats the only moat here. OpenAI doesn’t even know how their model wor
17.
by danny_codes 13d ago
How can we prove intent? I’m sure a clever actor can disguise their prompt and simply claim the LLM suggested such and such on its own. It’s not like Anthropic or OpenAI have the faintest idea how their models actually work.
18.
by danny_codes 13d ago
Obviously lab just means company. They use it because it confuses the public into thinking they are doing research primarily. Which of course is nonsense.
19.
by danny_codes 13d ago
Of course, just your normal 10000% return. Pretty typical I’m sure that’s very accurate.
20.
by danny_codes 13d ago
Ofc. This announcement is in all likelihood a calculated pr play to create some regulatory moat, because internal progress is likely stalling out
21.
by danny_codes 13d ago
A machine that exhibits behavior akin to human intelligence. OPs analogy is accurate.
22.
by danny_codes 13d ago
OFC, YC is in the business of making money and simply doesn’t care or consider ethics whatsoever. They just don’t care. But this is pretty standard for this class of people. To get super rich you have to fuck people over, there’s simply no
23.
by danny_codes 13d ago
Isn’t that exactly the problem pointed out on the article? In an attempt to make driving more affordable, the state causes the victims of drivers to pay for their own victimization. Par the course for a CA law but still. As a side n ote,cur
24.
by danny_codes 17d ago
I disagree, it’s about computers. The risk is that we lose control. This has been a staple of SciFi since forever. This guy has apparently seen enough that he thinks that’s a viable threat
25.
by danny_codes 22d ago
Rich people have more capacity to do harm. For example that dude Luigi killed was a mass murderer, he killed 1000s, maybe 10,000s of people. So it’s hard for a poor criminal to compete
26.
by danny_codes 24d ago
Why don’t your customers find you? Assuming you have what they want. I suppose depends how broadly “ad” is taken to be. Is a webpage an ad? Presumably no if it’s your landing page. OP is presumably talking about invasive ads that try to tak
27.
by danny_codes 1mo ago
> Risking burning your bridges with YC Why would violating TOS for a single company matter to YC? That kind if initiative is highly valued at YC. The more rules you break the better!
28.
by danny_codes 1mo ago
Piketty's proposal is a wealth tax. That's the subject of my previous post. I agree income taxes are progressive. Tt's just that very wealthy people don't pay them by virtue of not having any taxable income (they of cour
29.
by danny_codes 1mo ago
Regulatory capture is always an option, true. Certainly seems to be the favored direction of the current administration.
30.
by danny_codes 1mo ago
And who is lobbying the government to keep it that way? Probably Amazon let's be real here

More ›