throwaway132448

Why are threads on this topic (and its adjacents) always full of Americans blaming Israel for their own country’s actions? Is it a coping mechanism to not accept any moral accountability? Israel is minuscule in every way compared to the US.

You seem to be implying that would mean something. Sounds naive/desperate.

Just be mindful that you filled in the gaps between the lines with what you wanted to read, not necessarily what's true.

Amodei, Altman, and the many that have gone before them: I'm just so bored of these god complexes. They are all the same.

Given how little most of us can know about the true cost of inference for these providers (and thus the financial sustainability of their services), this is an interesting signal. Not sure how to interpret it, but it doesn’t feel like it bodes well.

Not sure I follow the link to the Soviets, but yes they certainly excelled at letting too few people accumulate too much power too. If only we were able to learn a little more from history.

You’re talking about something that happens in a country that wants free markets. It doesn’t really apply to countries that want oligopolies or monopolies.

Allowing individuals to hoard enough wealth to corrupt, at will, the system that gave them their wealth - maybe that wasn’t such a good idea after all.

But who knew?

I said I want to _see_ less ego. Calling out assholes is being that change, because not enough people do it. If you’re going to try and feel superior through technicality (which let’s be honest, claiming a single interpretation of a common phrase is a dumb way of trying to achieve that), at least pay attention to the details.

Fair enough. However I feel that there are plenty of others we could give our finite attention to, from who we would derive as much or more benefit from. So that’s what I’ll do, with no net loss for me.

It’s called “being the change you want to see”. I want to see less ego, so I’m telling those who are the opposite that it has downsides.

It is, think on it for a little longer then.

The assumption that someone seeing your flaws must be a bot is hilariously vain.

Surprised it’s not called Wolfrology. This man is ego personified - not reading.

> while doing little or nothing to achieve it

Adding additional security to something that doesn’t need security is basically doing this by definition. It’s adding nothing because nothing was needed. So yes, theatre.

It’s how you signal you’re part of the AI inner circle/cult.

Great, we've arrived at the "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear" logic. Always a winner.

Well said, great analogy. Sometimes the level of abstraction feels arbitrary - you have to understand the circumstances that led there to see why it's not.

Bad assumptions are just another form of stupidity.

There’s no such thing as free speech and there never has been. To believe there is, is to fundamentally fail to understand what a society even is.

Because I’m saying the threat vector you used to justify it is not an issue for me at all, so it’s a baseless justification for “security”, ergo, theatre.

Says who? How do you know what’s on my device, how much it matters to me, and what countless other options I have for recourse if that did happen?

Security theatre killed this. Everyone must be assumed to be a moron incapable of living with the consequences of their own choices at all times.

If there’s one thing I learnt from HN it’s how many people can’t comprehend this. Is it a byproduct of growing up in a very transactional or selfish environment?

Whataboutism is just fascinating. How myopic must your world view be that when you see one bad thing, you immediately try to justify it by pointing out another bad thing?

I used to think along these lines. But now I think the truth is - does it matter if the economy grinds to a halt? Perhaps the ruling class can still keep enough Americans comfortable enough, and fearful of losing more, doing largely pointless jobs, to stay passive - and that’s all they need to do to completely bifurcate the society such that they face no threat to their own position.

It’s got to the point where I turn off my WiFi now to do performance-sensitive work, because of the boost that killing all this background rubbish gives. Anything I need online I can just offload to my phone while my computer is offline.

Principles and morality are not the same thing, so no, incorrect. I could have completely amoral principles. Morals are grounded in social consensus, principles are not.

Spend less time trying to be right and more time learning.

Of course, a complete lack of self awareness is also a common principle-free, sociopathic trait.

I honestly pity you if you think having principles is a psychological trap.

Of course, the complete lack of inhibition that affords, is exactly what can make psychopaths so compelling.

Edit: You edited your comment so mine is now irrelevant.

You seem to think that “pragmatic” and “rational” have universal or objective definitions, which is completely untrue. For example, depending on if you have a short term or long term view of a situation could completely change whether an action is considered rational or not, and vice versa, and has absolute nothing to do with any moral framework.

You only think I’m hurting myself because you don’t understand what having principles means, and that violating them would hurt more than any monetary penalty. Whether it hurts the other or not is completely irrelevant to my decision. But it makes sense that you think in zero-sum terms, people without principles usually do.