211–220 of 564 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Promoting the general welfare is literally discussed in the first paragraph of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights came later.
The Constitution is just a piece of paper. For every thousand steps the Congress, regulators, and state assemblies take in the direction of tyranny, the courts claw back one or two.
I believe you can't, at the same time, accuse OpenAI of benefitting of ideas mostly invented elsewhere, and also claim that they are in a predominant position. It does not make any sense, and they are not naturally positioned for a monopoly. Just other companies have to move their asses.
I’m not sure why that doesn’t make sense. In a winner takes all market, where the product is highly complex, which is likely the case for any product developed since the advent of computers, if not before, the predominant position will almost certainly be taken by somebody, and since it’s a highly complex product, it’s likely no one entity thought of and/or implemented even close to a majority of the ideas needed to…
Just because Search was winner take all, doesn't mean AI will be. What network effects or economies of scale are unachievable by competitors? Besides, Alpaca showed you can replicate ChatGPT on the cheap once its built - what's stopping others from succeeding?
There seems a lot of negative perception of the guy here, and OpenAI definitely deserve criticism for some stuff (so as the CEO, so does he), but - even if it was built on the work of others, and with the obvious caution about what may come next - he and they deserve immense respect and credit for bringing in this new AI age. They did it. Nobody else.
Stop asking the market to look after collective interest. This is the job of the government. The ultimate effect of virtue wanking CEOs and corporate governance is to deceive people into thinking democracy is something that can be achieved by for profit organizations and that they can forsake the formal binding of collective interest through law. It's nice if people are nice but it is not a bulwark of the collective…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a fan of OpenAI, but this is nonsense. All of human existence is mostly other people's ideas. Among a ridiculously huge list of other things, OpenAI benefits from the mountains of labor that made scalable neural networks possible. Have they had their own good ideas? Definitely. Are they benefitting of ideas mostly invented elsewhere? Also Definitely, just like everybody else.
I'm not really a fan of openAI, but I think we're seeing the classic mistake of confusing product with technology. Steve Jobs / Apple didn't anything you'd call new ideas either (obvious cliche but so is the criticism). It's execution and design once the tech reaches a certain level
Stop asking the market to look after collective interest. This is the job of the government. The ultimate effect of virtue wanking CEOs and corporate governance is to deceive people into thinking democracy is something that can be achieved by for profit organizations and that they can forsake the formal binding of collective interest through law. It's nice if people are nice but it is not a bulwark of the collective…
Though we do vote with our wallets too.
Stop asking the market to look after collective interest. This is the job of the government. The ultimate effect of virtue wanking CEOs and corporate governance is to deceive people into thinking democracy is something that can be achieved by for profit organizations and that they can forsake the formal binding of collective interest through law. It's nice if people are nice but it is not a bulwark of the collective…
The third way is to build AI technology that empowers the individual against state and corporate power alike. Democracy got us here. It cannot get us out.
Ha, I'm OK with that as long as I get to pick the individual!
I mean, an AGI under the control of some individual could indeed make them more powerful than a corporation or even a state but whether increases average individual freedom is another question.
Stop asking the market to look after collective interest. This is the job of the government. The ultimate effect of virtue wanking CEOs and corporate governance is to deceive people into thinking democracy is something that can be achieved by for profit organizations and that they can forsake the formal binding of collective interest through law. It's nice if people are nice but it is not a bulwark of the collective…
One of the main roles of government is to step in where markets fail.
Stop asking the market to look after collective interest. This is the job of the government. The ultimate effect of virtue wanking CEOs and corporate governance is to deceive people into thinking democracy is something that can be achieved by for profit organizations and that they can forsake the formal binding of collective interest through law. It's nice if people are nice but it is not a bulwark of the collective…
> Stop asking the market to look after collective interest. This is the job of the government. One of the main roles of government is to step in where markets fail.
Because that's worked out great so far?
In every case I can think of, the government (usually because it's already captured) only ever serves to further exacerbate the issue.
Are there any employees of OpenAI around? I had a question: Does anyone in the office stop to contemplate the ramifications of developing technology that will likely put most people out of a job, which will have a whole host of knock-on effects?
Self checkout machines put people out of a job. Cars put stable boys out of jobs. Light bulbs put candlemakers out of jobs. Are the people who made them also morally culpable? Let’s just make no progress ever in the name of employment I guess. /s
Have they, though? Is there good data on this? I haven’t seen anyone lose any jobs over this in my area. They either get reassigned to different departments or get better jobs doing the same thing in companies that refuse to use self-checkouts. And I read here just a month or so ago that Amazon closed many of their "no cashier" stores in NY and Trader Joe’s vowed to never use them.
> Light bulbs put candlemakers out of jobs
I would guess that such artisans moved on to other niche products. Where I live, candlemakers today make a lot of money, and I had a chance to watch them do their thing in their small commercial space. This was a one person operation, no employees and no mechanization, and judging by the amount of product they were creating and their wholesale prices, they were pulling in about about 300k a year or more, after taking into account supplies.