throwaway132448

I think it would be disingenuous not to point out that this was also true of new cars 20 years ago - which is much more pertinent to the point of the people you're replying to.

It’s an unfortunate title given the pedophilia and the headlines of recent years.

No I’m not because the philosophy of intelligence is a tiny subset of philosophy more broadly, which is what the above comment said. And what makes the current discussions farcical is not that the philosophy wasn’t forced on them, nor that their reasoning is invalid; it’s that when they did decide to consider it, they don’t have the awareness to first seek out the prior art.

I don’t think I understand what you’re trying to say.

In the literal sense, people have been forcing their philosophy on other people for at least as long as we’ve had societies, so I assume it’s not that.

Witnessing the same people discover philosophy from first principles in the face of AI has been similarly farcical, as if we’re the first people to try and wrestle with a definition of intelligence.

What is it with SWEs thinking every problem can be addressed in terms of SWE, while at the same time being unaware of how little they understand the problem they are trying to address?

Google - and all the many companies like them - only have themselves to blame for why they lost the benefit of the doubt. Play shitty games, win shitty prizes.

Absolutely. Thinking in zero-sum terms seems to be this community’s default now and that’s a sad situation given where we came from.

> comparable living standards

So vague as to be utterly meaningless.

And slow moving regulation literally incentivises high capex long-horizon investment.

Move on. When someone tells you who they are, multiple times, listen. Don’t act like you’re in an abusive relationship.

Comment removed - I regret commenting here.

> Literally no one benefits from the alternative.

Future you might disagree with present you. But even if we disregard time, I think millions of consumers would benefit from the opportunity to have competitive markets again. If an actual economic forest fire was allowed to burn, we might eliminate some of the too-big-to-fail corruption and oligopoly that is the norm now and provide space for new seeds to grow.

Not what I remember - we had TechCrunch for that. Hacker News was for hacking - we used to flood the front page with Erlang articles whenever things went off track.

Also pro/anti capitalism isn’t the issue - narrow mindedness and a lack or empathy is.

Welcome to HN. It wasn’t always this way, but it sure is now!

> Information wants to be free

Only ever said by people who have never put in the effort to create any information of value.

Imagine have principles this worthless. Must be pretty nice actually.

This is a dumb question given that being funded by a US billionaire is what shapes their opinion.

Why do you put the onus on everyone else to make excuses? It sounds very entitled.

You’ve taken my comment out of the context I was replying to, so none of what you’ve said is remotely relevant to what I said.

You reap what you sow. What I want to know is why so many people are lamenting actions having consequences?

Wait - does the AI rewrite the tests too? If so, lol.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

No it means one thing - they are friend-less sociopaths.

It could imply many things, in terms of how that actually manifests in their behaviour. But I don’t care about that at all.

I only wish us plebs would stop inflicting them on ourselves.

Despite already being familiar with such a person (in the form of Altman), for some reason you are trying to find minor reasons that they are different people, and it’s distracting you from the major reasons that they are actually the same people.

I can’t offer any more than that, because it’s all I have. It’s about observation not conspiracy.

They’re not weird or random when you’ve lived around many people like him before.

Apparently not enough of us have unfortunately, so you keep elevating them when you should know better.

So here I am trying to give you a heads up.

This is so true. The obsession with framing things in black and white permeates everything, including unfortunately work in tech. This has always had me keep my distance from “fellow” nerds, despite ostensibly being one.

If you find yourself cheering for one billionaire versus another, you’re the definition of pathetic.

> Everybody values their own time more than other's.

This is false, you’re just oblivious to people who grew up in conditions that would make them that way.

I think conflating emergent behaviour with life (let alone intelligence) as we had typically defined it, is unfortunate and obliterates a lot of nuance.

I’d much rather we let things burn more quickly - there’s nothing sacred about these companies and no reason to believe they should not be transient.

When you try to halt every small forest fire, like we have done since 2008, then uncontrolled destruction becomes inevitable.

You’re too emotionally and financially invested in the status quo to be an instrument of change.

Do you not think using a word in this way undermines its actual meaning?