srackey

Bureaucratic states are corporations too, brah. (Arguably more like AI than joint-stock companies, as there’s no one person in charge — just the collective incentive structures)

Except we have no control to compare to.

Software is eating the world after all. Seems likely that demand would be high anyway. Perhaps if there were no H1Bs, entry level grads would make $250k, with the average senior dev making $750k+.

Propaganda is effective on impressionable youth. More news at 11…

I fear it will end up more like nuclear energy: a clearly better, objectively safer technology that nevertheless is very easy to fear-monger against. Development won’t be pushed to the Third World, but rather those political systems less susceptible to being swayed by nonsense public pressure like that.

The federal government spends 25 times Jeff Bezos’s net worth each year. They’re also the ones tasked with making sure people aren’t starving and homeless.

You’re crazy dumb idiots for thinking Bezos having money is connected at all to homeless and hungry people existing (in fact, I’d think you’ll find those things are negatively correlated — the USSR and Mao’s China had no billionaires, but boy did people go hungry!)

“If you found a company and it’s too successful, that wealth should be taken from you.” “I see, and who should take the money?” “The government!”

More commie drivel on the front page of HN. I thought this was an entrepreneurship forum?

What are you trying to imply here sir?

Sorry, you need to get off the internet if you think that the simplest explanation is that an AI singularity is right around the corner.

Gwern, Bostrom, Yudkowski et. al. are terrific sci-fi writers, but I’d advise against taking them too seriously.

You are assuming sama is not bullshitting you about the whole “own AGI” and “capture all the value in the lightcone” gobbledygook. It sounds like a high-stakes game? Of course it does! Sama isn’t some technical wizard, but an entrepreneur. He’s marketing his (completely ordinary) company.

There’s a world where ChatGPT and other GenAI tools are a multi-trillion dollar market, but where they also don’t get anywhere close to AGI, let alone some hyperintelligent machine god. Occam’s razor suggests that’s indeed the world we’re in.

Power comes out the barrel of a gun. Forms of government have always followed military technology. In the modern era, this means highly technical, complex supply chains, and the technical know-how to manage it all. As war is increasingly fought by AI powered drone systems (an inevitably, IMO) the firms with key value-add in this process will increasingly gain sovereignty. Power will be highly fractured in this environment between different “equity lords”.

To justify their legitimacy, they’ll need to keep economic growth up (also an inevitability with the rise of AI) and probably also issue some sort of UBI.

Basically expect the future of America to be a sort of modern Holy Roman Empire, with Microsoft in the role of the Hapsburgs.

Nah he’s right. Yandex is pretty good. Easily on par with Google/Bing. I suspect just no one uses it in America so the results aren’t SEO’d to death.

I’d bet Baidu is decent too but that one really isn’t set up to interface with the Western internet.

The author writes that there are far more admirable journalists also locked up. This may be true. The interesting thing about Assange is not just that he’s locked up, but that he’s locked up in the UK, for extradition to the US.

Again, not to minimize these other journalists, but a journalist being prosecuted in Iran, Belarus, the UAE, etc. is very different from one being persecuted in a western nation with rule of law and free speech.

You were never priced out, you just can’t afford the concert. The price they jacked it up to is the market price.

The band or venue don’t benefit, the people who can now buy when they’re used to be a shortage do. It’s just arbitrage, being compensated for adding liquidity to the market.

He actually is adding value. The pricing is way out of line with the real demand, causing a shortage. But bands/venues don’t want to set ticket price at market price because it will make them look bad.

Scalpers take the reputation hit in exchange for setting tickets prices such that anyone who wants to pay market price can get one.

Scalping could be done away with, but only by setting pricing at market value, which many are reluctant to do. Hence, it will remain.

Also what Trader Joe’s does. It’s kinda their whole deal, and partly the cause for their success.

Because it just doesn’t seem to work (in aggregate, it may work for you, but not the firm, and not the firm over an indefinite time span).

This just means the algorithm thinks you’ll like Tate or Peterson. Maybe you will, idk. How is that a “rabbit hole”?

This is in fact not “absurdly dangerous”. It may actually be safer than using a biological intelligence for the same purpose. Given that, and the shortage of biological mental health workers, it seems reasonable that many many more would suffer negative outcomes were they not allowed to use this tech. As such, I’d argue that your comment is absurdly dangerous rhetoric, and your license to post on this web forum should be revoked.

Of course we have a shortage of CEOs or can manage large organizations efficiently. Just like we also have a shortage of NFL quarterbacks or MLB pitchers.

Healthcare CEO pay is in-line with executive pay of similarly sized firms.

Simply put, senior management of large corporations is a skill few have, and even fewer are willing to take the responsibility and stress of.

ITS FUN!!!

And maybe can be used to do interesting things.

Let’s work on the cool tech together.

I promise you it will not hack into the mainframe and turn the world into paperclips. (Odds are…near zero).

1. People dedicate their time to stupid nonsense all the time. They mostly all honestly believe in said nonsense, and are probably in consensus with others sharing the same nonsense. That doesn’t mean it’s real! See: alchemy, lysenkoism, or the UFO stuff we keep seeing.

2. All science that does not internally generate revenues must rely on a patron, be that a person, corporation, or government. Funds from these orgs is limited, so scientists must justify why they should get money. This introduces a huge bug in science as a truth cremation mechanism because seeking truth may not be in a patron’s best interest. As the sums of money get larger, this effect becomes more intense.

Tech hasn’t “burned through social capital”. The media has shifted from being positive/neutral regarding tech to actively hostile, mainly because tech has been increasingly approaching their turf.

Regulators follow public opinion, public opinion follows the media.

Yes, and this will require violence to achieve (how else can you enforce the “from each” and “to each”?)

Communism has been tried. Again and again. The utopian endpoint it tires to get to is not possible. The consistent result is mass death and poverty.

Far higher chance you’ll die on the way to school in a car accident.

School shootings are to the left what terrorist attacks are to the right —- fear-mongering over an ultimately rare and insignificant problem to drive desired policy change.

People can make babies, and we’re not limited to a one planet ;)

But we used to work more and this wasn’t as much of an issue?

Communism

Don’t take the job then.

There will be nations or places that choose to restrict or stop AI development. These people will eventually find themselves conquered by the invincible autonomous robotic armies of the people who did choose to develop AI technology. Ouch!

ChatGPT/GPT3.5 and its weights can fit on a small thumb drive, and copied infinitely and shared. Tech will get better enough in the next decade to make this accessible to normies. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle.