martin-t

96 ms·

421.
by martin-t 1y ago
Any potential ASI would still be limited by raw resources and even if you assume all work would be done by robots, somebody would still have to build those robots first. Such a ramp up in production would give everyone else time to build th
422.
by martin-t 1y ago
ASI doesn't change physics. Perun has a very good explanation why defending against nukes is impossible to do economically compared to just having more nukes and mutually assured destruction: https://www.youtube.com/wat
423.
by martin-t 1y ago
Or nobody could take the upside. Imagine if ownership of a company was divided according to the amount and skill level of work.
424.
by martin-t 1y ago
The law really should be "if you cause harm to others you will receive 2x greater harm done to you". And "if you profit from harming others, you will compensate them by 2x of what you gained". Instead of the current maz
425.
by martin-t 1y ago
While real nukes still work. What bad thing exactly happens if China wins? What does winning even mean? They can't invade because nukes. Can they manipulate elections? Yes, so we'll do the opposite of the great firewall and block
426.
by martin-t 1y ago
It's simple, the current models and their usage is copyright infringement. Just because everyone is doing it doesn't meant it's right or legal. Only that a lot of very rich companies deserve to get punished and pay the creato
427.
by martin-t 1y ago
LLM providers should only be allowed to train on data in public domain or their models and outputs should interior the license of the training data. And people should own all data about themselves, all rights reserved. It's ironic copy
428.
by martin-t 1y ago
I wish n-gate was still around. He would note the high vote to comment ratio. When HN has little to say, it's always a sign of a high quality very technical article. On a more serious note, this highlights a deeper issue with HN, simil
429.
by martin-t 1y ago
Sorry for a late reply, it took me a while to read the article. As far as I can tell from it he was a habitual abuser and his death is not a loss for society, quite the opposite. One thing people struggle with is the idea that every life ha
430.
by martin-t 1y ago
Hypocrisy saves the day. Your comment honestly made my day. You're right, though i think my pessimism is warranted.
431.
by martin-t 1y ago
The way I see it, there are 2 concepts - morality and legality. Morality is complex to codify perfectly without contradictions but most/all humans are born with some sense of morality (though not necessarily each the same and not neces
432.
by martin-t 1y ago
Yep, legality is just a concept of "the people who control the people with the guns on this particular piece of land decided that way". It changes when the first group changes or when the second group can no longer maintain a mono
433.
by martin-t 1y ago
One man's revenge is another man's punishment. Popular media reveals people's true preferences. People like seeing rapists killed. Because that is people's natural morality. The state, a monopoly on violence, naturally d
434.
by martin-t 1y ago
One man's evil is another man's law.[0][1] The issue is they get to define what is evil and it'll mostly be informed by legality and potential negative PR. So if you ask how to build a suicide drone to kill a dictator, you&#x
435.
by martin-t 1y ago
> They don't capture your entire value. Explain. > They don't decide what fraction you deserve - that's what the market decides. No, they decide based on what they can get away with given the market situation. Do they p
436.
by martin-t 1y ago
Or they could "deplatform" anyone they don't like. Sure, you can live without google/meta/reddit/... but you will miss out on both business and social opportunities, especially if they do it without warning. It
437.
by martin-t 1y ago
People are weapons. Maybe not Apple because they don't have a social network but Google (along with Facebook/Reddit/TikTok/...) can absolutely shape public opinion by controlling which posts/videos/discussions&
438.
by martin-t 1y ago
Same reason we have laws against slavery and indentured servitude.
439.
by martin-t 1y ago
Worker cooperatives: - A bunch of examples here: https://old.reddit.com/r/cooperatives/comments/p23rxr/what_a... - Some more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership - Oxide
440.
by martin-t 1y ago
Can you expand on that?
441.
by martin-t 1y ago
One theory I read is that historically states got bigger only up to the limit of their ability to manage the land and force people to pay taxes. I don't know if it's right or wrong (and to what extent, most natural systems are com
442.
by martin-t 1y ago
I am not from the US but this comment is rude and not constructive.
443.
by martin-t 1y ago
A dictator deciding that every village needs to produce X amount of steel instead of actually harvesting their crops and them millions of people dying is exactly the opposite of what I described. RMS said whenever he promoted software freed
444.
by martin-t 1y ago
Did you notice how communism was always about central control with only superficial or absolutely no elections? Did you notice I specifically said decisions should be made democratically? Are those two not in direct conflict? Please, stop p
445.
by martin-t 1y ago
> Hierarchy is not dictatorship Sure, the difference if whether the hierarchy is determined from the top or bottom. Top leads to unfair benefits for the top layer. This is called exploitation. > wide variety of reasons Can you give me
446.
by martin-t 1y ago
> bad boss It's not (just) about a bad boss. It's about somebody being in a position of power who captures the entire value you produce (sales, IP, patents) and decided what fraction out of it you deserve. > But if there&#x2
447.
by martin-t 1y ago
Are you referring to communism? Because that was all about central control - the exact opposite. It was about as cooperative as countries with "democratic" in name are actually democratic. Don't let a bad implementation ruin
448.
by martin-t 1y ago
How about removing the hierarchical power structure entirely. The west claims people are all equal and then they happily slave for cents while their "bosses" make dollars. Worker cooperatives are to corporations what democracies a
449.
by martin-t 1y ago
How about instead abolishing privately owned companies? Most western countries are democracies because people got fed up of being exploited by dictators (sometimes called "kings"), removed them and setup a system in which they ele
450.
by martin-t 1y ago
I know this is just an example but why shouldn't employee compensation and benefits be visible to coworkers? If the knowledge is one-sided, then so is the ability to negotiate. This benefits nobody except the company which already had

More ›