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

A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries

policykahani.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–107 of 107 posts

Re: A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries

#101

Post by Smeevy »

xvector wrote: post #100
kashunstva wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once you accept that doing the morally sound thing costs money, the question becomes what is the most good you could do with that money. Relative to the topic of this thread, providing access to LLMs at a loss would not be at the top of my list of ways to right moral wrongs either. But more broadly, taxing the rich costs nothing, unless one believes that Reagan economic theory is backed by actual empirical evidence…

> But more broadly, taxing the rich costs nothing It does though. 1. As one of "the rich" that progressives target continuously, I still can't afford a house in CA. I'm moving to Washington and CA will lose many median Californians' worth of income. 2. Nearly every EU country that attempted wealth taxes (another form of "taxing the rich") recalled them due to capital flight that offset the tax income. 3. California h…

You make over $500k annually and you can't afford a house? I call shenanigans.

Your pearl clutching about government waste seemed weird to me until I read your links. Manhattan Institute? You're citing positions from right-wing think tanks after Project 2025?

Unless you need guidance for how to kidnap gardeners or stop women from voting, anything coming these organizations is dangerously ridiculous.

Re: A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries

#102

Post by jama211 »

thefz wrote: post #97
jama211 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can think of a few job related reasons you’d use it, you know, to make money. If those few specific ones you mentioned are all you can think of then…

Such as?

If you’re unable to think of examples like “software development” without my help, I suspect you’re going to struggle in this conversation.

Re: A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries

#103

Post by thefz »

jama211 wrote: post #102
thefz wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as?

If you’re unable to think of examples like “software development” without my help, I suspect you’re going to struggle in this conversation.

If you’re unable to develop software without AI I suspect you’re going to struggle once those who learned it without AI hit the job market

Re: A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries

#104

Post by unmole »

maratc wrote: post #25
torginus wrote: post #10

One issue I have with the widely used metric of 'Productivity per hours worked' - if I have a second apt I rent out to Bob for $1000, I have a 'productivity' of $6.25 per hour 'worked', despite nobody producing anything and nobody working for any length of time.

But that's the same with GDP: if you and me are living on an uninhabited island and grow/catch all of our food for consumption, our GDP is $0. If however I rent out my bungalow to you and rent yours instead, and I sell you all my food and buy your food instead, somehow our GDP skyrockets.

> if you and me are living on an uninhabited island and grow/catch all of our food for consumption, our GDP is $0

No. The imputed value of goods produced for self-consumption is included in GDP calculations.

The UN SNA term of art is own final consumption: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/docs/SNA2008.pdf

Re: A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries

#105

Post by xvector »

Smeevy wrote: post #101
xvector wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But more broadly, taxing the rich costs nothing It does though. 1. As one of "the rich" that progressives target continuously, I still can't afford a house in CA. I'm moving to Washington and CA will lose many median Californians' worth of income. 2. Nearly every EU country that attempted wealth taxes (another form of "taxing the rich") recalled them due to capital flight that offset the tax income. 3. California h…

You make over $500k annually and you can't afford a house? I call shenanigans. Your pearl clutching about government waste seemed weird to me until I read your links. Manhattan Institute? You're citing positions from right-wing think tanks after Project 2025? Unless you need guidance for how to kidnap gardeners or stop women from voting, anything coming these organizations is dangerously ridiculous.

You clearly aren't discussing in good faith if your response to the write up above is essentially "right wing thought detected, opinion rejected."

What an excellent demonstration of shutting off factual information to support your own biases.

- You know nothing about the CA housing market vs income and income tax, or my personal situation, but you simply assume I'm lying.

- You're intentionally sticking your head in the sand because you think the paper is from a "right wing think tank" - regardless of the fact that an extremely well-respected fiscally liberal podcast, Freakonomics, supported the findings.

- You're somehow asserting that because I find the findings in an economic paper compelling, I must support the erosion of civil liberties, in an attempt to reduce my argument to the absurd and insult my character.

It shocks me that people can engage in discussions so simplistically and maliciously. HN has deteriorated so much because of comments like yours. Please just refrain from participating entirely if you're going to yell into the void and then not engage in good faith. Reddit is that way.

Re: A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries

#106

Post by jama211 »

thefz wrote: post #103
jama211 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re unable to think of examples like “software development” without my help, I suspect you’re going to struggle in this conversation.

If you’re unable to develop software without AI I suspect you’re going to struggle once those who learned it without AI hit the job market

That wasn’t the argument you silly billy. The point was that if you have two equally experienced developers but one has access to AI tools, the latter will outperform the former.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said anything about it being a good thing for people to be unable to code without ai or any other such nonsense.

Re: A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries

#107

Post by Smeevy »

xvector wrote: post #105
Smeevy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make over $500k annually and you can't afford a house? I call shenanigans. Your pearl clutching about government waste seemed weird to me until I read your links. Manhattan Institute? You're citing positions from right-wing think tanks after Project 2025? Unless you need guidance for how to kidnap gardeners or stop women from voting, anything coming these organizations is dangerously ridiculous.

You clearly aren't discussing in good faith if your response to the write up above is essentially "right wing thought detected, opinion rejected." What an excellent demonstration of shutting off factual information to support your own biases. - You know nothing about the CA housing market vs income and income tax, or my personal situation, but you simply assume I'm lying. - You're intentionally sticking your head in…

I wouldn't say that I'm arguing in bad faith so much as recognizing yet another situation like this: https://www.readtpa.com/p/innuendo-studios-card-says-moops-s...

Let's look at "rich flight" through the lens that is not colored with difference to the affluent. The idea here is that, if you make rich folk pay more taxes, they'll pack up their hoard pile of gold, jewels, and dwarf skeletons and fly away to somewhere they're less taxed and more appreciated.

That sounds great until you realize that rich people have massive roots in the places they live. Their expensive homes and professional lives are very closely tied to the community in which they're located. This flight is something that gets threatened very frequently and acted upon very rarely. If past performance is any indicator of future returns, then I'd gladly take my chances that those jerks stick around and pay their fair share.

>You're intentionally sticking your head in the sand because you think the paper is from a "right wing think tank" - regardless of the fact that an extremely well-respected fiscally liberal podcast, Freakonomics, supported the findings.

My disgust comes from actually looking through the Mahattan Institute and seeing it's every bit as trash-flavored as the Heritage Foundation. I absolutely don't need to entertain their disingenuous, fascist-adjacent prattle. After the last few months, it's advisable to write off anything that still claims to be conservative. They've squandered all benefit of the doubt and, for the sake of our own survival, should be reviled at every opportunity.

On a more targeted note, you are switching between "I find this idea intriguing" and "this idea is a fact that's supported by the liberals on Freakonomics" so fast I'm getting whiplash over here. Freakonomics, while entertaining, has been spectactularly wrong enough times that it's more entertainment than anything else. You're appealing to an authority that has a predilection for results that are "surprising."

I don't know if you support the erosion of civil liberties, but it seems like you enjoy repeating things from folks that do.

Post reply on HN