godwinson__4-8

5 ms·

1.
by godwinson__4-8 5d ago
> maintain a territorial monopoly on legitimate violence For what purpose? Seems strange you start here and then need me to connect the dot to blood feuds. We are saying the same thing. If adjoining families take it upon themselves to en
2.
by godwinson__4-8 5d ago
Compelling argument. All involved in this AI endeavor should be forced to answer: What other made up figure are you waiting for!?
3.
by godwinson__4-8 5d ago
Humorous rejoinder to complain of my own lack of citation and then responding with an ostensibly competing theory while offering no citation of your own. Perhaps it is because you are aware that the two go hand in hand? As to the rest of it
4.
by godwinson__4-8 5d ago
They are talking about tradeoffs. It's perfectly coherent to anyone who understands a) what a state is and b) not all states are equally bad. States are by their nature, necessarily violent. Their primary purpose is to prevent lethal i
5.
by godwinson__4-8 6d ago
A better internet is one in which LLMs enable everyone to ride their own custom Chromium (or whatever) flavor and the "frontend" of > 90% of sites - especially e-commerce - is generated specific to the user given their configur
6.
by godwinson__4-8 8d ago
I still see a lot of denialism. It is easy to ignore the misallocation of output and the private greed when generally people are still doing fairly well. As the denials give way, the politics will change. You may be right such moments will
7.
by godwinson__4-8 8d ago
You are missing the obvious answer. The state runs the system. Or really at a certain point, the state runs itself. In 100 years or so, the CEO becomes a barbaric relic of the past age, like our ancestors who beat each other over the head w
8.
by godwinson__4-8 8d ago
For thousands of years humans have dreamed of reaching the stars. Imagine if the astronaut taking Earthrise had looked down upon his planet with such scorn. Human aspirations frequently exceed our capacity for timely predictions. It doesn
9.
by godwinson__4-8 8d ago
Right, and the consequence is going to be, what? Humans with zero economic value can still vote. They can still mass. They will still have needs. Really the script here writes itself. The historical precedents bound the problem rather well.
10.
by godwinson__4-8 8d ago
I said a glimpse. I didn't say it's here now or it would be easy. It is however, achievable. Certainly more so than engaging in the fantasy that we can criminalize LLMs out of existence. And it is likely more desirable than such a
11.
by godwinson__4-8 8d ago
Our "culture" has long been the province of corporations. In prior epochs it was still the product of patronage and power. At least with LLMs we can glimpse an escape route to that which generations of humans have strived for - a
12.
by godwinson__4-8 8d ago
> Who pays you to defend Facebook? Do you have shares? Do you have interests? Is this the best you can do?
13.
by godwinson__4-8 9d ago
> We need a new non-commercial version of the internet. > you pay to access social media optimized to be interesting... So is it commercial or non commercial? Nothing is stopping you from creating a social network that is pay gated. G
14.
by godwinson__4-8 12d ago
I think it's often "medical" cures. I believe the Jewish billionaire's wife's secret was to "longevity". I think the target is the elderly. My understanding is they have always been a frequent target of th
15.
by 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 vote
16.
by 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 t
17.
by 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
18.
by godwinson__4-8 12d ago
I'm so happy someone else has seen the Jewish billionaire's wife ad it's so weird and no one I know IRL has seen it and if you try to describe to someone in person you sound insane.
19.
by 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
20.
by godwinson__4-8 13d ago
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.
21.
by godwinson__4-8 14d ago
> On August 15, 2007, the case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and was dismissed on December 29, 2011, based on a retroactive grant of immunity by Congress for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the governm
22.
9/11 Commission Report (2004) [pdf](9-11commission.gov)
4 points by godwinson__4-8 15d ago|0 comments
23.
by godwinson__4-8 17d ago
I found this one of the more entertaining formulations of "back to the land" style sentiments that I have ever come across here, so the downvotes you are getting aside, I thank you for the humor.
24.
by godwinson__4-8 17d ago
You make some excellent points. Let's dig in! > Trump does have a say in how to run google, in a very real sense. Indeed, as does every President or government. But surely, you have noticed and take seriously that he has acted with
25.
by godwinson__4-8 18d ago
> It is always bewildering to me that people see the world being raped by corporations and their negative externality, and they think that this is the pinnacle that humanity can achieve. > I fancy myself a misanthrope, but damn, next
26.
by godwinson__4-8 18d ago
Not what democracy is. Every single serious theorist of democracy has recognized this. Democracy is about rule of law and institutions, not simply the mob. Tyranny of the majority is the paramount concern of all democracies. Nevertheless, i
27.
by godwinson__4-8 18d ago
Market reward is the best proxy for good we have. What's your alternative? Executive fiat? Mob rule? Deepmind is objectively good. These endeavors would always cost money. Better private capital than state, no one has to give Google
28.
by godwinson__4-8 20d ago
It seems you are misreading my comment and the cold realism in which it is articulated (and which the relevant historical actors in this moment operated under) as some sort of endorsement of the act or an ignorance of the accompanying atroc
29.
by godwinson__4-8 20d ago
True, I just meant that if you had something of value (like rocket expertise) you would be more likely to get favorable terms. And you knew the Soviets would be extra interested in you. Thus the added "eagerness". But yes the poin
30.
by godwinson__4-8 20d ago
How many PMs has Britain gone through in the past decade? As usual, not really sure blaming AI is a useful way to understand the problem. British politics has felt "broken" since at least Cameron's failed bet on Brexit.

More ›