Surely, SURELY, this has to be satire.
The word "hypercapitalism" undermines any potential this article has to be serious. This is just ragebait
Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars
121–130 of 256 posts
Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars
#122“The AI capital influx means that mega-projects no longer seem outlandishly expensive. This is good for the world!” Is it? This whole piece just reads of mega funds and giga corps throwing ridiculous cash for pay to win. Nothing new there. We can’t train more people? I didn’t know Universities were suddenly producing waaaay less talent and that intelligence fell off a cliff. Things have gone parabolic! It’s giga mega…
[flagged]
Advocating for increased concentration of power is quite a take.
Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars
#123Also, the people being hired now for insane sums of money, are being hired because they have deep knowledge in design / implementation of AI models and infrastructure that scale to billions of users. In order to operate on a scale like that, you obviously need to have worked somewhere that has that magnitude of users. That makes the pool of candidates quite small. It’s like building a spaceship. Do you hire the peopl…
With all these mega-offers going out, I object when people saying that they’re paying for “talent”. These AI folks are good, but not orders of magnitude better than engineers and researchers already working in tech or academia. Lots of folks are capable of building an AI system, the reason they haven’t is that they haven’t been in a situation where they have the time/money/freedom to do it. These mega offers aren’t a…
> These mega offers aren’t about “talent”, they are about “experience”
Well, yes.
Talent doesn't exist in the form people would like to believe, and to whatever degree it does, experience is the most reliable proxy for identifying it.
Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm still not seeing it. It's immoral because it's resources not spent on some particular problem you have in mind?
The 10x from 400 billion to 4 trillion in a decade didnt come from 2% inflation. It didnt come from nowhwere, or from Silicon Valleys exceptionalism - It came from changing the value of money, labour and resources. It came from everyday people, deficits and borrowing from the next 10 generations of children.
> The 10x from 400 billion to 4 trillion in a decade didnt come from 2% inflation.
Money printing does not cause inflation equally especially if not distrubuted so.
Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars
#125> The French had a uniquely high Gini coefficient before the Revolution. I feel like this one line captures the elephant in the room that the author is trying hard to convince himself isn't there...
Nature finds a way.
Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's a little more nuanced than that. Certainly IP is regularly abused to try to suppress competition/innovation, own our shared culture, create artificial scarcity, etc. However, there's also a need to protect artists and other creatives from having their work scooped up and profited off of by mega corps.
You're taking a nuanced view of fundamental thing and completely missing the point. Copyright is bad like inheritance is bad. Arguing about good and bad industrialists is missing the point.
What about compound interest? After all, inheritance is merely letting wealth continue to compound across generations. But at first glance, the same arguments against inheritance would apply against letting a single person earn interest.
Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars
#127“The AI capital influx means that mega-projects no longer seem outlandishly expensive. This is good for the world!” Is it? This whole piece just reads of mega funds and giga corps throwing ridiculous cash for pay to win. Nothing new there. We can’t train more people? I didn’t know Universities were suddenly producing waaaay less talent and that intelligence fell off a cliff. Things have gone parabolic! It’s giga mega…
Bubbles do what bubbles do.
Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's a little more nuanced than that. Certainly IP is regularly abused to try to suppress competition/innovation, own our shared culture, create artificial scarcity, etc. However, there's also a need to protect artists and other creatives from having their work scooped up and profited off of by mega corps.
You're taking a nuanced view of fundamental thing and completely missing the point. Copyright is bad like inheritance is bad. Arguing about good and bad industrialists is missing the point.
> Copyright is bad like inheritance is bad.
How is inheritance bad? Imo, estate taxes are more immoral. Why should the state be allowed a cut of my private assets? Gift taxes are also immoral. Why should I have to pay taxes for giving away assets?
Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really struggling with seeing how this is immoral.
AI will change the balance of power removing a vital counter balance against the negatives of capitalism. It will take the power away from the workers, such that there will be no power left for people to make demands. We can hope it’ll be positive, but we aren’t even involved in its creation and the incentives are there to ensure it isn’t.
I guess the good thing is that many workers are also consumers. If they don't have money to consume anymore, who will buy all the shiny things that AI will produce so efficiently?
Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
however they do result in flows of capitals feeding into otherwise unfundable enterprise like R&D; science and engineering, or culture; writing, music, art. Where's the ROI if you invest millions into R&D and your competitor invests $0 and can then just reproduce your works with their logo ontop of yours? To sack off IP and copyright would significantly narrow innovation and result in many artists, scientists and eng…
> I don't think its as simple as calling them immoral. Rather the immorality comes on them being poorly regulated I think if behavior needs to be regulated by government in order to be moral, then it's immoral behavior by default The regulation doesn't make it moral, the regulation only limits the damage by limiting how immoral you're allowed to be
The regulation is what makes it worth while for people to invent/write. Patents/copyrights have been a net benefit for society with a smaller negative downside.