techostritch

It’s interesting me the difference between people who see holocracy/libertarianism as freedom and those that see it as oppressive.

I’m very independent in my job but having no managers feels like it would be a burocratic nightmare. I wonder what the personality or viewpoint difference is for those that feel the opposite

One of the questions I’ve been wondering in talks of decentralization is how do you balance freedom to move with self-government. Ot seems inevitable that if you put two states next to each other, a libertarian low tax state and a more progressive high tax state, people will live in the low tax state as long as it benefits them and move to the high tax state to retire to if they get an illness or something similar.

Do we want a United States where you need a visa for interstate travel?

What does “basic problem-solving on par with a human who holds a doctorate degree” mean? By definition a person with a doctorate degree is capable of some pretty advanced problem solving right? I mean by some measure isn’t having a doctorate degree the pinnacle of problem solving? It’s a weird contrast.

I think the why must matter though right? Unrelated to I viewpoint could you just sue a group because they all agree advertising on your platform is useless?

You think so? I think Musk has mastered the art of the over promise and under deliver and as long as he delivers something in October even if it’s just a small refresh on his cars, and FSD beta v13, people will be fine with it. I think like Trump were just in this age of deities and the only thing that could unseat Musk is _maybe_ if some new personality managed to suck the oxygen out of the room, or game investors a place to believe.

If there only pushing it back 2 months, that seems like a good sign?

According to capitalism, competition should encourage Tesla to work harder to deliver a better product, if Elon is the smartest CEO in the world, that should be good for TSLA shareholders.

I asked ChatGPT to develop and image of the founding fathers, and it was strikingly similar to the image on the Wikipedia page. Same color scheme, same layout, it was clearly directly encoded into the network or whatever. So for one, I just think either it’s not tuned right or there’s not nearly enough data in there, but 1. I think that creativity is not quite as mechanistic as people may imagine in their heads.

And like maybe creativity is really ultimately just curation, and like how does AI/LLMs sell people on their vision. chatGPT can’t just library of Babel their way to creativity.

I don’t think that AI will never be creative but I think it’s a deeper philosophical question then yes/no.

“Kill their family and everyone in their neighborhood because they might do something irrational because of the pain”

While I am a morbidly curious individual who would love to see one of these “too big to fail entities fail”, I don’t know that I share your confidence. And I don’t know that it’s taking responsibility either, if you let them fail, the pain is sharply distributed unevenly away from the people who caused the issue, then if you just prosecuted them.

But if we prosecute Boeing’s executives, what message would that send to other executives? That they shouldn’t sacrifice safety engineering standards in the pursuit of record profits? Will no one think of the shareholders!

> it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials,"

Why not just license them like everyone else?

> but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens.

Needs is doing a lot of work here.

Kasparov seems to be a respected public intellectual or at least it’s debatable which is more than you can say for most others (though maybe that’s the exception that proves the rule).

Oh god no, that’s definitely in the cynically written in bad faith hacky partisan politics category. Maybe it just hasn’t aged well, but I couldn’t get through it.

I keep seeing people say you can’t stop progress (social, technical, etc.) but has this really been tested? There seems to be a lot of political upheaval at least being threatened on the near future, and depending on the forces that come into power I imagine they may be willing to do a lot to protect that power.

Tucker Carlson at one point said if FSD was going to take away trucking jobs we should stop that with regulation.

Right, but what happens if content starts eating itself such that there are no articles to summarize

I wonder if the inevitable conclusion of this is further consolidation so like openai buys Reuters or something - AI companies end up also becoming the publishing companies because the only way to make money off of novel material is if it’s no there for all the AI companies to scrape up.

I don’t think I fundamentally disagree with anything you said, except your conclusion, my position would be, that it’s macro forces that make news organization ABC untenable and untrustworthy. if ABC kept being ABC the pattern you noticed would have happened anyway, maybe just faster or differently.

And maybe counterintuitively, I think a real ABC would be the least trusted source of all.

The only alternative I think would be to go back to a time where there was only an ABC(haha).

I do think it’s interesting that the only solution people come up to these problems is something authoritarian, this isn’t a criticism of you actually, I don’t know your politics but it’s something I’ve been wrestling with lately. Is the only way to have a free/informed/unified society to have total control of the information flow? Or total control of the culture?

Or maybe asked another way, how do you create the ABC that people want to watch when there’s so much other media out there customized to your exact perspective.

There’s also the fact that ABC is inherently conservative(small c) because what about D! And E! and L!

I don’t know if I’m taking Kafka too literally here, but the books that I read that bite and sting probably fall into two categories. Things that are cynically written in bad faith and things that are hopeless and callous. Torture porn bites and stings, reading hacky partisan politics bites and stings. Anything that makes me feel stupider after reading it bites and stings.

The things that I think that he wants to say, the inconvenient truths, the things that make me see the world in a whole new way, that challenge everything I believe in. Those things fill me with joy and wonder they are just so few and far between.

Maybe the thing he’s getting at is the existential dread? The truth that nothing you do is meaningful? The staring into the abyss? In which case maybe in moderation, but I fundamentally disagree.

in a sense I wonder, if this is what he means, what a weird way to view life, that those things that challenge you are negative.

This prediction seems to be counter to all other predictions.

Im imagining a world where one product manager manages a whole project and outsources all the dev and design work to ChatGPT, interesting to imagine the opposite.

“ predict consumer behaviors”. Interesting I would think this would be one thing AI would be particularly bad at.

Absolutely, my point was that if the theory I responded to were true, I would expect that the most successful new news organizations would be less biased/narrativey than the NYT. Do we see a wealth of new organizations that are that way? __maybe__ the free press but personally I find them the most narrativey of all.

I will say even though I disagree with this perspective, I am heartened by how optimistic it is in presuming that your fellow person wants objective credible news.

so, in this narrative, it seems like the most popular news outlets are ones that take a specific side — daily wire the young Turks. Do you think these outlets represent the “true” narrative that people are looking for?

Like I’m not making any statement about whether or not news organizations are reliable purveyors of “truth” I don’t think they are, but I think the argument is the opposite of yours, that the attempt to unbiased is pushing people away.

In the COVID narrative, people are drawn to news organizations that take a strong stand in one direction or another, not the ones that try and thread the needle towards “truth” and that legacy media like the New York Times. Is too liberal for conservatives and too conservative for liberals.

While a conservative looks at the New York Times and sees a liberal rag that occasionally panders to conservatives with an occasional below the fold op-ed that is intentionally de-prioritized to spin a narrative. Liberals in fact see those same below the fold op-Ed’s as evidence the the paper is unwilling to tell the “true narrative” because of fear of alienating conservative support.

I’m starting to wonder if post war America was this unique time in history, because I’m not saying your wrong but it also seems like historically the idea of an unbiased news media is not the norm.

In general I have trouble believing it’s the medias fault though, not that they’re without sin, I just think the forces that make something like this are bigger than the media.

What does it mean to lose credibility in service to narrative?

Is this a joke? Biden becoming decrepit has been running non stop in mainstream press his whole election, in fact it’s so common there’s almost an equal number of “why is the mainstream media obsessed with Biden’s mental state” articles.

I think my favorite journalists are ones who have “strong opinions loosely held”. Like it’s interesting to go in with a hypothesis and maybe even a desired outcome as long as you are willing to take the data as it comes.

The worst is the opposite people with an agenda who extract the one counterpoint to a 500 page research paper and write an article about how the whole papaer validate their assumptions

But somewhere in the middle is the boring boilerplate overview that takes no real stance at all.

Do people en masse really want this trad unbiased intellectual version of journalism though? It seems like all of the new successful outlets are explicitly biased/activist. I can’t imagine in our emotional polarized world what people are really clamoring for is the days of Walter Murrow.

Ultimately I think this doesn’t work because politically, it’s about power, not fairness. Your solution may work if it’s about fairness, but most people will want to use the moderated feed, and there will still be arguments about why person A’s content is not in the moderated feed, and what worries me about “taking companies free speech away” is that the ultimate goal for a lot of people is to be unmoderatable which sort of fundamentally means they don’t want Twitter to be a fair town square, they just want it to go away.

Ultimately I think we’ll start to see harder pushes on this, like I think when conservatives get enough power they’ll try to age-wall all lgbt content in the internet. And I suspect if liberals felt they weren’t mostly winning the moderation battle, they’d push harder.

A Trump presidency will have a lot of uncertainty. I think you’re likely to see a massive game of thrones that will make what’s been going on with house leadership look like a playground dispute. Tucker Carlson has spoke out about things like autonomous driving before if it takes trucking jobs away. How do you balance working class MAGA, the religious right, old money right and tech right in any reasonable fashion?

It’s a confusing coalition, and it seems tech could get royally stomped if it’s not careful.

Even with all the deregulation happening, I could equally see the right stomping on section 230 and pushing weird regulations on AI/automation.