248 karma · joined September 23, 2015
Who is deciding who gets to use GPT-5.6? Which organizations? Which leaders?
Focus on that to have a clearer conversation. Without doing this it's like jerking each other off to stroke our egos. You might as well as say "The World will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6"
They are playing status games, and making particular products available to specific people.
Whatever the majority of people get will be a modified, probably weakened, version of what those at higher social classes get.
> with no possibility of recovering their capital except by concession of the people's representative
This is definitely not true and its not that binary.
This is rich social classes claiming more for themselves.
Someone convince me otherwise?
It reminds me of the conspiracy theories I would hear as a child along the lines of powerful people running the world in shadows. I certainly feel like the ways people like executives keep getting away with unethical and in some cases illegal behavior is there's forces in the shadows supporting their behavior. I was told in history class that throughout history when such types of people arose such as kings in France or massive dictators who conquer countries, that the "good" or "masses" of humans eventually over throw them - well here we are and why isn't that happening?
I see instead a class of people weak, afraid, and defeated and continually asking others "why aren't you doing anything" without the awareness to see "You are the one who is supposed to do something" edit: applying this to myself, I'm certainly trying. Before I was fired at Capital One (as an engineer) I would continue to ask tough questions of integrity to executives and my team and managers, things about integrity, things about inconsistencies in our stated values and how we were actually delivering work. I took some heat, was not very liked, and took continual abuse from my team until I was eventually kicked out. I am happy to share how little I noticed people who felt uncomfortable with team culture and executive communication were just silent and afraid, and in denial as I got attacked and abused by management.
For example if you felt your body and your mind was your property, if someone else copied your mind and was now profiting off of that without your consent, would you not feel that harmful to you?
Or can it be conditionally true in some cases, in some living experiences, and not others?
Yes this is in line with what Anthropic said in their public statements about their Fable access restriction by the government directive. The hypocrisy and inconsistency in their statements and behavior feels quite childish and controlling. I believe our companies and their leaders, friends among our other influential leaders and leaders from rich social classes, want to actively hurt most people as this behavior looks to be quite self-interested.
Why is a lab that pays all licenses today not on your list? Is ethics and morality that low on your radar?
it doesn't just take a psychedelic experience to see this though.
Just because you haven't experienced something, and overely on your intellectual and thinking faculties (because you can't rationalize or understand something with you mind you discount its rights or existence) doesn't mean its true. Edit: I mean we in general overrely on our minds as filters for knowledge, wisdom and understanding when in reality much of knowledge, wisdom and understanding cannot be grasped by the mind or thinking; in many cases the mind deceives & tricks us.
> stealing: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
I admire Ben for being so direct. I wonder why we fetishize, herbicide and normalize theft, even deception today. When did this become normal, and why draw the line at digital creation and not just allow theft of physical objects, too? (I mean I get the arguments about copying someones digital creation doesn't really mean you took what they had from them, you just made a copy, though this doesn't logically apply to if I also physically stole someones product and made a copy since copyright/patent protection likely applies)
I found my groups and communities in odd, niche areas like mindfulness communities and men's groups therapy - maybe you relate? Are you also selective with groups and friends, and keep a smaller circle perhaps?
The silent majority creates a false feeling of large consensus and inability to know the reality.
The gist of it as I understand it is in a society where things are fake and incredibly extractive (where a select few, bourgeoisie or rich prioritize their interests over others like we see accelerating today) they limit the forums available for people to question them and peddle their interests on the select few that remain. If you sufficiently isolate the people, it's hard for them to tell whats real and eventually they come to accept the fake narratives as truth.
In an odd way, this sort of fits in with the theories about winners writing history, and all those weird, sort of conspiracy-laden accounts of human history having these odd unexplainable gaps or stories around it. I don't know about you, I think we are simply seeing those forces of the past working at preserving their interests and using the latest technology to do it.
Do you not worry about giving away your most intimate data to for-profit companies who have not signed to protect your data in a dignified fashion?
Also irrational parts of this market (would love to hear your thoughts):
- the purchase of hardware that isn't power efficient or gives an ROI for ML/AI use cases by companies buying it, who would be priced out of using that hardware over time
- many people and companies are buying the hardware due to hype and scarcity/FOMO reasons over rational reasons
Personally, I think when theres this much money involved the psychosis would only intensify.
I wonder how much money is actually involved?
Don't underestimate the markets ability to remain irrational
edit: I don't particularly care for Google Sheets, just the idea of solving the underlying problem.