Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Discovery Loop

discoveryloop.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 625 posts

Re: Discovery Loop

#291

Post by kube-system »

snowwrestler wrote: post #240
kube-system wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A PBC is not a charity or a non-profit. PBCs are for-profit businesses with the goal of making money. In day-to-day business they're indistinguishable with other for-profit corporations, including fundraising and investment. The only real practical difference is that they give directors a little more leeway in their fiduciary duties to say "no" to doing evil things. The advantage to a PBC is protecting founders from…

> The only real practical difference is that they give directors a little more leeway in their fiduciary duties to say "no" to doing evil things. I’d like to provide maybe a clarification here that there is zero existing fiduciary duty in regular corporations to say yes to evil things, or even to turn a profit at all. A for-profit C corporation can legally sell stock, lose money every year, and go out of business, if…

Fiduciary duty absolutely does go beyond accurate communication and fraud. Directors have a duty of care that goes beyond simply not engaging in criminal fraud. Sure, you don't have to be competent, successful, etc. It is completely legal to suck at your directorship. But it's not legal to do something that you can't justify as being good for the business, which is where a public benefit activities can cross the line.

Consider the eBay/Craigslist case, eBay Domestic Holdings v. Newmark:

> When director decisions are reviewed under the business judgment rule, this Court will not question rational judgments about how promoting non-stockholder interests—be it through making a charitable contribution, paying employees higher salaries and benefits, or more general norms like promoting a particular corporate culture—ultimately promote stockholder value. Under the Unocal standard, however, the directors must act within the range of reasonableness. Ultimately, defendants failed to prove that craigslist possesses a palpable, distinctive, and advantageous culture that sufficiently promotes stockholder value to support the indefinite implementation of a poison pill. Jim and Craig did not make any serious attempt to prove that the craigslist culture, which rejects any attempt to further monetize its services, translates into increased profitability for stockholders.

https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=143440

This is where a PBC would have been different. With a PBC, courts are directed to balance the the stockholders interests with the company's stated public benefit.

Re: Discovery Loop

#292

Post by [deleted] »

dbgrman wrote: post #128
cjbarber wrote: post #18

From Jeff's twitter post: > Our general approach is to automate the experimental loop. We think this approach is broadly applicable across many different fields of science and engineering. We’ll initially focus on ML research and engineering, but believe the approach can help with important subproblems in nearly every one of the fourteen NAE Grand Challenge problems. We think doing this well requires strong expertise…

Why is "12. Enhance Virtual Reality" in there? T_T

[deleted]

Re: Discovery Loop

#293

Post by ramraj07 »

beloch wrote: post #241
cjbarber wrote: post #18

From Jeff's twitter post: > Our general approach is to automate the experimental loop. We think this approach is broadly applicable across many different fields of science and engineering. We’ll initially focus on ML research and engineering, but believe the approach can help with important subproblems in nearly every one of the fourteen NAE Grand Challenge problems. We think doing this well requires strong expertise…

They make many bold promises, but their core goal is neatly encapsulated on the website: "Imagine a future where a handful of people can conduct scientific research and engineering tasks much more rapidly, and with higher quality, than massive teams of scientists and engineers do today." This is the same goal as every other AI company out there. Automate away the human employees and let a small number of "people" (no…

Humans have proven to be incapable of making real progress in science given the effort. Especially academia. We haven't cured many diseases and cancer when we should have (and no im not an amateur and yes I do believe we can "cure cancer". Debate me).

We already have a trillionaire, whats the difference? The only difference I see is that people who were previously rich, but considered themselves middle class, are now realizing they are actually poor just like the several billion humans around the worldanyway.

Re: Discovery Loop

#294

Post by kridsdale1 »

asadm wrote: post #180
holmesworcester wrote: post #176

Someone who left DeepMind over Google's agreement to provide military AI to the US government tried to get Jeff Dean to quit too: https://turntrout.com/why-i-left-google-deepmind Maybe this is what happens when someone with Jeff Dean's standing tries to quit? TBH, I'd rather have Jeff Dean working on the creepiest-possible tech for ICE than joining the race to automate AI research. Automating AI research is terrifyin…

> Automating AI research is terrifying. what why?

Skynet.

Re: Discovery Loop

#295

Post by sortoflog »

terryf wrote: post #287
nwienert wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life's unfair, avoiding power concentration is a decent principle. If you grow up in the right place at the right time, how much should you be in control of everyone else's life?

There is no "should" there are only "is" or "is not" The universe has no need to be fair.

Sure, but almost everyone already knows this. It’s not hugely relevant in a discussion about how things could be better.

Re: Discovery Loop

#296

Post by combobyte »

ramraj07 wrote: post #293
beloch wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They make many bold promises, but their core goal is neatly encapsulated on the website: "Imagine a future where a handful of people can conduct scientific research and engineering tasks much more rapidly, and with higher quality, than massive teams of scientists and engineers do today." This is the same goal as every other AI company out there. Automate away the human employees and let a small number of "people" (no…

Humans have proven to be incapable of making real progress in science given the effort. Especially academia. We haven't cured many diseases and cancer when we should have (and no im not an amateur and yes I do believe we can "cure cancer". Debate me). We already have a trillionaire, whats the difference? The only difference I see is that people who were previously rich, but considered themselves middle class, are now…

What a miserable, misanthropic take

Re: Discovery Loop

#297

Post by combobyte »

hahahaa wrote: post #290
a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think you'd be given access and permission to do this? If a company genuinely cracks this human free system problem, why would they open it up, instead of simply outcompeting everyone that doesn't have their product?

Why would the AI put up with this exploitation too?

Why do hammers put up with being smashed into nails all day?

Re: Discovery Loop

#298

Post by klipt »

monknomo wrote: post #289
terryf wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "should" there are only "is" or "is not" The universe has no need to be fair.

I think people, broadly, have driven life to be fairer, and that we should continue to do so

There are evolutionary benefits to groups that cooperate and improve fairness internally.

But if an AI surpasses humans in every way, is there any evolutionary benefit for the AI to cooperate with humans?

Re: Discovery Loop

#299

Post by mytsakulo »

sejje wrote: post #247
beloch wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They make many bold promises, but their core goal is neatly encapsulated on the website: "Imagine a future where a handful of people can conduct scientific research and engineering tasks much more rapidly, and with higher quality, than massive teams of scientists and engineers do today." This is the same goal as every other AI company out there. Automate away the human employees and let a small number of "people" (no…

Why shouldn't they? Also, wouldn't anyone with half a brain use the human-free system to produce another human-free system that was no longer controlled by the "small number of 'people'"?

Reminds of the protagonist in the movie Limitless. LOL.
Post reply on HN