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

Dear Marc Andreessen

al3x.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 194 posts

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#111

Post by drumdance »

jdminhbg wrote: post #15

> Taxi drivers protesting Uber aren’t saying that they want apps out of their cabs. Of course they aren't saying that, it would be political suicide to say it. But given the stubborn resistance to even using the credit card readers forced on them by utility commissions, do people really think that cabbies are aching to have apps between them and their customers that would thwart their ability to skip inconvenient far…

> the stubborn resistance to even using the credit card readers forced on them by utility commissions

They resisted it because it cost them money. When a corporation is forced to do something like this we call it burdensome regulation.

Fortunately for cabbies, fees overall are lower because Walmart won a massive lawsuit against Visa. That was back in 1996, but it looks like history is repeating itself: http://www.digitaltransactions.net/news/story/4587

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#112

Post by comboy »

J_ wrote: post #65
comboy wrote: post #31

Seems that both authors don't really see strong AI as a possibility (at least within say next 50 years). I wonder what HN readers take on that is, but to me it seems quite likely. Not necessary designing one from the scratch, but "uploading" human brain (once we have good enough resolution and technology). It changes quite a bit about everything.

Like you said, strong AI would change everything. The richest will be the first to utilize them. Things get scary from that point on. Unless we massively redistribute wealth, then inequality will arrive at unimaginable levels. It's hard to think of a world where the top 1% owns many multiples of what the bottom 99% owns. I'm guessing at some point that we'll decide as a species that strong AIs cannot be owned by indi…

Yes I mean simulating human brain (of course with all advantages of digital form, including increased speed and multiple copies).

I don't think that wealth would matter at all after strong AI.

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#113

Post by superuser2 »

jdminhbg wrote: post #15

> Taxi drivers protesting Uber aren’t saying that they want apps out of their cabs. Of course they aren't saying that, it would be political suicide to say it. But given the stubborn resistance to even using the credit card readers forced on them by utility commissions, do people really think that cabbies are aching to have apps between them and their customers that would thwart their ability to skip inconvenient far…

Drivers want you to pay cash because everything else involves a technology company (CC processor, Uber, or both) taking a cut of the sale and cash doesn't. If a tech startup were resisting middlemen in this way, we'd probably call it common-sense business acumen. When it's a taxi driver, he's the scum of the earth?

>do people really think that cabbies are aching to have apps between them and their customers that would thwart their ability to skip inconvenient fares or grab an easier ride on their way to a call?

You do realize that these are regulations that the monstrous freedom-hating left gave you over your objections, right?

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#114

Post by patrickaljord »

corford wrote: post #108
RichardFord wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, why should it? Just because we've learnt neoliberalism is flawed doesn't mean we should unlearn that statism was also disastrous (in different ways). Thanks for keeping on making my point :) There is no "we". There is you and some people that are in ideological agreement with you, but there is no we. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?

Fair criticism. To be honest, I just (arrogantly) assumed we'd reached a point and accumulated enough evidence to remove any argument that the 20th century's experiments with communism and socialism and the recent 25 year infatuation with neoliberalism were anything other than overall failures. Judging by the down votes I'm getting, I'm clearly wrong and the idealogical battles rage on (mine included).

In what way has neoliberalism been a failure? Most prosperous countries are the ones that practice it the most (Switzerland, Hong Kong) and EU countries who have gotten better lately have been the ones taking neoliberals measures by cutting state spending (UK) and in South America the best economies have freed their ecomonies the most. There is nothing that can beat a free market economy, sure you can regulated to some extend if you want and it is all around the world, but a healthy free market economy with as few regulations as possible is still the best way to go as reality has shown, call that neoliberalism or mixed economy with as few regulations as possible or whatever you want, but it's not a failure and it's not going away.

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#115

Post by MaysonL »

phillmv wrote: post #48
rdl wrote: post #11

I don't think pmarca is saying people are against robots per se, but against the efficiency-driven unemployment they see. I'm firmly on the side of pmarca and technology here -- I'd love to see virtually all crappy jobs today disappear, and we could find new and better things for those people to do (through the market, ideally, but I'd be open to Basic Income or other forms of wealth distribution if needed). I cannot…

>I'd love to see virtually all crappy jobs today disappear, On that note, Graeber is fun to read on this topic http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ >I cannot imagine retarding technology just to preserve existing jobs being a winning strategy which makes the world better. Well… that depends on the distribution of income, doesn't it? If my choice is between Elysium and the world of today, I'd rather stay put thank…

Of course, you should take that Graeber article with a few grains of salt, given that he also wrote this:

Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops in each other's garages

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#116

Post by briantakita »

chongli wrote: post #58
bokonist wrote: post #22

I'm with Alex generally, but disagree with this sentence: "We could make the choice to pay for universal health care, higher education, and a basic income tomorrow" In the last sixty years, a tremendous amount of money has been poured into education. Much money has been allocated to increase college enrollment. But, IMO, for the vast majority of people, college education is a luxury social club. Spending more money o…

Spending more money on college is just a wealth transfer from tax payers to upper middle class teachers and administrators. This is the case in the United States. In several places in Europe, however, it is a different story. Higher education is cheap or even free and schools are not bloated with a glut of unnecessary bureaucrats and administrators.

> not bloated with a glut of unnecessary bureaucrats and administrators

In America, Education is about standardizing thought & systematically removing novelty from the students. That requires bureaucrats & administrators to ensure that the novelty is systematically removed on schedule.

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#117

Post by corford »

wutbrodo wrote: post #100
corford wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's really the point of al3x's post. I think it's more we should be very worried that someone with such a balck & white, infantile view of society and economy is in a position to throw billions of dollars at advancing his world view. I love technology but fear for the world we'll end up with if people like pmarca are left to pull the levers.

I'm genuinely curious why you think that he has a black and white view of society. It seems like the one-dimensional, black-and-white technocrat view you're ascribing to him wouldn't be in full support of "creating an sustaining a vigorous social safety net", right? The only arguments I've ever heard against "Don't hamper technological progress but provide a robust safety net to take care of those left behind" are th…

My feeling is "Don't hamper technological progress but provide a robust safety net to take care of those left behind" is itself a straw man. No one is hampering technological progress. Instead a lot of people are (correctly imho) not willing to blindly succumb to it on a promise from those at the top that it will all work out in the end. Everyone is a stake holder in society and entitled to their own fears, hopes and beliefs. pmarca has his, the guy about to be replaced by a robot does too. A responsible society listens to both and figures out an equitable compromise. The problem is pmarca has billions of dollars available to bolster his position in the debate. The guy on the factory flaw does not. A second problem (for me at least) is that what pmarca says and what pmarca does often appear to be two different things.

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#118

Post by bokonist »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #64
bokonist wrote: post #22

I'm with Alex generally, but disagree with this sentence: "We could make the choice to pay for universal health care, higher education, and a basic income tomorrow" In the last sixty years, a tremendous amount of money has been poured into education. Much money has been allocated to increase college enrollment. But, IMO, for the vast majority of people, college education is a luxury social club. Spending more money o…

>In the last sixty years, a tremendous amount of money has been poured into education. That wouldn't be the last sixty years of explosive innovation and social growth, would it? You mean the most inventive and creative sixty years in all of human history? The problem now is that universities have become degree mills and social networking clubs. The subscription fees are insane, and because education has become commod…

That wouldn't be the last sixty years of explosive innovation and social growth, would it? You mean the most inventive and creative sixty years in all of human history?

The sixty years prior were pretty explosive too - we got the car, airplane, nitrogen fixation, radios, etc.

In my observation, you maximize returns to education when a) 90+% of people are literate in terms of both words and math b) ~20% of your population has a good trade education and/or apprenticeship c) 5-10% of your population has a good technical education (engineering, accounting, medicine, etc.). Beyond that, there are diminishing returns. The benefit of giving 50% of your population a "business and communications" "education" at State U is pretty low. Especially when that "education" is really just a four year party.

The U.S. was probably at maximal educational efficiency in the 1950's. And we are getting a lot of benefit from the small percentage of education that is actually technical. But the marginal, additional, dollars spent since then, IMO, have had little impact.

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#119

Post by taurath »

paul wrote: post #42
jdminhbg wrote: post #15

> Taxi drivers protesting Uber aren’t saying that they want apps out of their cabs. Of course they aren't saying that, it would be political suicide to say it. But given the stubborn resistance to even using the credit card readers forced on them by utility commissions, do people really think that cabbies are aching to have apps between them and their customers that would thwart their ability to skip inconvenient far…

I feel like both the left and the right are trying to take us back to some idealized version of the 1950's. I want a political movement based on creating a new and better future, not hanging on to shreds of the past. We now have the technology and resources necessary to provide everyone with adequate food, housing, healthcare, and education. That's what I want, not more "job creation" or preservation of obsolete jobs…

What motivates people in a society where all their needs are met? Competition for resources has long been and will continue to be large aspect of humanity as a species, but I imagine we could reach for a truly golden age once a large group of people have the luxury of thinking about things like we're talking about now. It'd be amazing what we could build if more people had time to experiment - possibly bewildering and dangerous!

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#120

Post by briantakita »

bokonist wrote: post #104
sanswork wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your plan depends on everyone being able to work. There are a lot of illnesses and disabilities(physical and mental) that make that assertion not true. Would you have these people starve?

No, I said very clearly in my original comment that everyone gets a job, even schizophrenics and quadriplegics. There is something that everyone can do. If you are physically disabled you can monitor security cameras or transcribe city council recordings or something. If you are mentally disabled you can still probably pick up trash in city parks. There is some make work job available for almost anybody. The only exc…

Is sweeping streets a way of fulfilling your highest purpose in life?

We live in an age of abundance. Why not allow people to create what they want to create? Art, music, love, good feelings in the community, etc.

Here's a good story on a dystopia & utopia in an age with automated machinery, less jobs, & more overall abundance.

http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Post reply on HN