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

611–620 of 625 posts

Re: Discovery Loop

#611

Post by kube-system »

vineyardmike wrote: post #606
kube-system wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did, they’re called benefit corporation laws, and here’s a map of the states that have passed them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation#/media/Fil... I don’t think there’s some practical way to force existing corporations to include something in their charter, if that’s what you’re suggesting. Business organization is something that a business chooses to do.

> I don’t think there’s some practical way to force existing corporations to include something in their charter Laws are but a pen stroke away. No existing nor new C corp and their executives shall be be considered in breach of their fiduciary duties or obligations if they take an action they deem to be in the best interests of society at large, as long as it’s not fraudulent or otherwise illegal behavior.

Yeah, I know a law is just words written down... but what you're suggesting is not even what a PBC even is... you're suggesting something so radically different that it would be silly:

1. Corporate charters and form of incorporation are consensually chosen by those involved.... you're suggesting something that is in violation of that consent. This would have crazy unintended consequences. Remember that a corporation is not necessarily a business. Imagine an investment holding company, or a building cooperative, where the directors could have a blank check to use money for some unrelated public benefit. That's completely bonkers.

2. PBCs don't get to do any "action they deem to be in the best interests of society at large"... they get to do things that are in the interest of specific public benefit goals which they have defined in their charter and those are balanced with the interests of shareholders. Everyone involved knows and agrees with what these specific public benefits are, which is an important thing.

Re: Discovery Loop

#612

Post by CamelCaseName »

decimalenough wrote: post #479
londons_explore wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similarily, everyone becoming their own accountant / lawyer / other professional services. These professional services will defend themselves with gatekeeping. Suddenly it doesn't depend anymore on the quality of your legal advice, but whether it has been stamped by a qualified Lawyer. It doesn't matter that your taxes are correct, but whether they are submitted by an approved accountant. Etc.

It's not just gatekeeping though. The reason you get a qualified, credentialed structural engineer to sign off on your house instead of just YOLOing the build is so that you (and your insurance company) can sue their pants off if it collapses.

Except in extreme cases of fraud or negligence, you won't win a suit against your accountant or lawyer.

Re: Discovery Loop

#613

Post by physix »

ktallett wrote: post #455
physix wrote: post #454

In many domains, scientific research is physical. Are they going to deprecate labs and sort of scale that out into a pure compute problem? They are occupying a term in their headline messaging that is much broader than they can actually cover. A common pattern these days. Overclaim, attract attention, iterate.

You can create a research twin that can predict but as you say, it only works once you have a lot of data. Both the data relevant to the experiment it came from (which is rarely published) and the complete failure data (which is almost never published in any form).

Predictions are only one part of research. It's what theorists feed experimentalists with. Confirmation of predictions is by and large a very physical endeavour. Labs are not going away.

I do feel that it's exciting to see what AI will be able to do to help research and discover new things.

My gripe is with their messaging. Because a lot of people will misinterpret that, including politicians, possibly to the detriment of good science.

Re: Discovery Loop

#614

Post by mytsakulo »

mytsakulo wrote: post #304
sejje wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'"?

My best research is one that is seeking funding but none is forthing and by sheer guts and whatnot makes a breakthrough that basically funds itself. No investors. No funders. Definitely not public.

Wolfram and Mathematica come to mind

Re: Discovery Loop

#615

Post by t_mahmood »

fragmede wrote: post #603
t_mahmood wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah! This point jumped at me. And, immediately I don't trust this. This sounds same as Google's "don't be evil" enshiftification, consolidating technologies that was available in a competitive way. I prefer Scientists, and team of people working on things, instead of a corporate controlling everything with promise of automation, thank you very much.

Are these theoretical spherical scientists that work in free range habitats just doing science and nibbling on carrots? The telephone came out of a corporation's research lab and there was a lot of money and profit motive involved.

Was the Wright brothers working for any corporation or for money?

Re: Discovery Loop

#616

Post by duusejhshhs »

scottyah wrote: post #584
duusejhshhs wrote: post #478

I keep being reminded of Eisenhower’s “plans are useless, but planning is indispensable”. While “useless” might be a harsh term, surely he is onto something in attaching a higher value to the process that produced a result than the result itself. What if “science” wasn’t about the results? What happens if you keep the “plans” but drop the “planning”? I deeply wonder how AI will impact our personal ability to remain c…

We'll adapt. So far, it seems like every technological increase has demanded more cognitive ability, not less. Sure, we may not need 100 people who are experts at shoveling, but the people developing, maintaining, and even operating the excavators all have to be "smarter". All the thinking, learning, and training needed to stay alive in the cold might have been mostly lost when fire was controlled, but it comes with…

We’ll adapt for sure, but not all adaptation is beneficial.. either way, it’ll happen and it’ll be one hell of a ride.

Re: Discovery Loop

#617

Post by WJW »

bladeacidic wrote: post #600
WJW wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is nonsense. "Monitored" is not the same as "unavailable", any chemistry lab worth its name has the means and procedures to acquire toluene in pretty much any quantity it wants. As long as you have the required licenses, keep careful administration and can produce said administration during inspections, there is nothing to worry about.

Does all that administration and licensing magically happen for free and take zero time? It's stupid extra overhead for something as fundamental as toluene that Chinese labs don't have to follow. You're right that it's not insurmountable, but it's still stupid extra work, and the threat of randomly being investigated for doing science is hardly "nothing too worry about". Just always have every one of your papers in o…

I personally don't have any issue with explosive precursors being controlled more carefully, no. If it means we have to spend some more time and money organizing safe storage, that is a worthwhile price to deter the religious nut next door synthesizing TNT in their bathroom or having their own private fentanyl lab to poison the populace with.

The point of regulation is not to protect the producer, but to protect everyone else who has to live in the same society. If the Chinese make another tradeoff and sacrifice some of their citizens in the name of greater riches for the billionaire class, that is their problem.

Re: Discovery Loop

#618

Post by WJW »

analog31 wrote: post #607
bladeacidic wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does all that administration and licensing magically happen for free and take zero time? It's stupid extra overhead for something as fundamental as toluene that Chinese labs don't have to follow. You're right that it's not insurmountable, but it's still stupid extra work, and the threat of randomly being investigated for doing science is hardly "nothing too worry about". Just always have every one of your papers in o…

Or having to plead the fifth when asked about your work.

Or you know, just tell the truth? Doing legal things with controlled substances is not forbidden, provided you maintain the required documentation and safety measures. The point of the regulation is to prevent untrained randos from making TNT and synthesizing MDMA, not to prevent any toluene use at all.

Re: Discovery Loop

#620

Post by downrightmike »

ShadowOfThePit wrote: post #523
downrightmike wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Make Solar Energy Economical - Disallow fossil fuels 2. Provide Energy from Fusion - See 1 3. Develop Carbon Sequestration Methods See 1 4. Manage the Nitrogen Cycle - See 1 5. Provide Access to Clean Water - See 1 6. Restore and Improve Urban Infrastructure - See 1 7. Advance Health Informatics - See 1 8. Engineer Better Medicines - See 1 9. Reverse Engineer the Brain - See 1 10. Prevent Nuclear Terror - See 1 11…

Holy shit, you are so full of yourself. This is such a stupid take with zero nuance. As if banning fossil fuels will help with any of those things, besides the first one. Little more than "Fossil Fuels are the root of all evil" performative bullshit.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49208314
Post reply on HN