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

Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

blog.johnluttig.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 256 posts

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#221

Post by dmbche »

renewiltord wrote: post #165
dmbche wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fairly cynicial aren't we?

What an immoral comment.

As a more substantial take, being cynical about the language a group uses to speak of their realities and wants is necessarily against dialogue, understanding or seeing the members of that group as equals.

If "their" political views have the same value as ones affiliation to a sports team, but your political views are well researched and valid, could you be overlooking something? Edit0: and more importantly, what are they to you? Do they not have the same mental faculties as you? How they able to live and thrive while in total abhorrence to natural law? Or are they all naive children who don't know better?

And yes, in any group you'll find loud idiots. Those are in your group too - you just ignore them and focus on the other group's idiots, while disregarding the valid views that are behind.

Especially in the age of algorithmic social media, it's hard to parse what's actually being said.

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#222

Post by UncleOxidant »

ploxiln wrote: post #204
bix6 wrote: post #11

“The AI capital influx means that mega-projects no longer seem outlandishly expensive. This is good for the world!” Is it? This whole piece just reads of mega funds and giga corps throwing ridiculous cash for pay to win. Nothing new there. We can’t train more people? I didn’t know Universities were suddenly producing waaaay less talent and that intelligence fell off a cliff. Things have gone parabolic! It’s giga mega…

> mega funds and giga corps throwing ridiculous cash for pay to win > This is just M2 expansion and wealth concentration I actually think "throwing ridiculous cash" _reduces_ the wealth concentration, particularly if a chunk of it is developer talent bidding war. This is money that had been concentrated, being distributed. These over-paid developers pay for goods or services from other people (and pay income taxes!).…

> I actually think "throwing ridiculous cash" _reduces_ the wealth concentration, particularly if a chunk of it is developer talent bidding war.

Very few developers are benefiting from this "talent bidding war". Many more developers are being let go as companies decide to plow more of their money into GPUs instead of paying developers.

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#223

Post by _DeadFred_ »

dmbche wrote: post #151
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The regulation is what makes it worth while for people to invent/write. Patents/copyrights have been a net benefit for society with a smaller negative downside.

Can you point to something that quantifies the positives vs the negatives? I have a hard time arguing that it's a net positive.

If I come up with an invention I don't have the capability/finances to bring it to market. Without patents, I have no incentive to show it to possible investors/manufacturers because they can just steal it and keep all the profits. So my idea that could have helped society dies with me. So it costs society nothing to give me protection, but society get's nothing without the protection versus efficiency, safer working conditions, better health, whatever benefit from my invention.

Without copyright it was hard to assemble high quality educational books/manuals, because they take a lot of effort with relatively little reward/return. In fact the first 'modern' copyright act in 1701ish was titled something about improving education.

Without copyright it is not worth it for authors to spend nights/weekends flushing out plot ideas for complete sharable works, so you end up with less/lower quality literature as no one can be a professional author. Which has better quality on average, published books or self published? Self published tend to be the 'passion projects' you would still have without copyright, published books tend to be what get's created when authors are compensated for their efforts. Society can't lose from copyright because without it the works would never have existed. If I say 'I'll bake a cake if you will buy a piece' and I bake a cake and sell a piece, society didn't 'lose'. If I don't bake a cake because no one would buy a piece than society was a little sadder, a little plainer that day. There is only upside, there is no downside. Anyone that would release if copyright didn't exist is still free to waive their copyright protection. So having it is the best of both worlds, those that want to release just to release can, and those that want to try and create something that can be sold can.

Without copyright there are no big budget movies, only passion projects because no one is injecting millions when the work will just be copied no sold/screened/rented.

Without copyright the world has less joy, less discussion, less contemplation, less entertainment, less education. Without patents the world has less productivity, less safety, worse health, less food, worse/much less clothing/housing, less free time. The systems in their current forms have been abused and are unfit for the original purpose but when kept to the original purpose with reasonable protection periods they are a HUGE net plus for society.

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#224

Post by fc417fc802 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #186
hammock wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All true of course, with a clarification: even if all the newly printed money is put in the hands of the poor, the resultant inflation raises the prices of hard assets which are overwhelmingly held by the rich (fueling wealth inequality)

You can say that they fail to dilute the value of hard assets, yes. So they don't really "punish" the extra-rich. But they only inflate prices by the amount of money you print, you can't make the poor poorer by giving them money.

That depends on your metric and time frame. Purchasing parity and relative wealth could certainly be reduced beyond the immediate term.

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#225

Post by bix6 »

nradov wrote: post #207
bix6 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slowing oil would've been a net positive given how unsustainable it is and all the negative externalities it forces onto society.

Nah. The alternative to oil was coal, or firewood, or freezing in the dark. The shift to intensive oil use enabled an enormous increase in human standards of living. If anything we should have accelerated it. The externalities have been minimal in comparison.

Killing the earth is minimal? I said slow not prevent. Tech accelerationists think tech fixes everything when it really just lets them abuse everyone for decades before regulations catch up, if they ever do.

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#226

Post by fc417fc802 »

Ekaros wrote: post #208
hellojesus wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Copyright is bad like inheritance is bad. How is inheritance bad? Imo, estate taxes are more immoral. Why should the state be allowed a cut of my private assets? Gift taxes are also immoral. Why should I have to pay taxes for giving away assets?

To me the giver paying taxes is wrong mindset. Maybe they should be collecting them. But paying taxes on earned money seems reasonable and has long history. It can be earned from work, or inheritance or gift. Actually maybe paying income tax on inheritance would be best.

The argument is that taxes were already paid when the relevant work was performed. Transfers of ownership that don't involve work (ie economic activity) shouldn't be subject to government interference.

The obvious issue is that if you don't tax gifts it becomes far too easy for people to dodge taxes (or at least much more convoluted to enforce payment).

Inheritance is much more complicated and controversial. There's an argument to be made that it results in social ills if left unchecked, an argument that estate taxes fail rather spectacularly to address those ills, and an argument that the ills tend to be self righting given how easy it is to lose money. And probably several others.

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#227

Post by fc417fc802 »

joshmarlow wrote: post #145
Weryj wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI will change the balance of power removing a vital counter balance against the negatives of capitalism. It will take the power away from the workers, such that there will be no power left for people to make demands. We can hope it’ll be positive, but we aren’t even involved in its creation and the incentives are there to ensure it isn’t.

I agree AI can change the balance of power but I think it's more nuanced. When expertise is commoditized, it becomes cheap; that reduces payroll and operational costs - which reduces the value of VC investment and thus the power of pre-existing wealth. If AI means I can compete with fewer resources, then that's an equalizing dynamic isn't it?

That assumes you (the human element) are still required to a significant degree. Right now those with assets are compelled to transfer them to those without because they have a need for the labor. If that need evaporates then why should they give you anything?

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#228

Post by southernplaces7 »

"Silicon Valley built up decades of trust – a combination of social contracts and faith in the mission. But the step-up in the capital deployment is what Deleuze would call a deterritorializing force, for both companies and talent pools. It breaks down the existing rules of engagement, from the social contract of company formation, to the loyalty of labor, to the duty to sustain an already-working product, to the conflict rules that investors used to follow."

Stopped taking this thing seriously with blurbs like the above. If anyone thinks that Silicon Valley was somehow previously ruled by some magical altruism that has now been forsaken, they're in a little cloud of their own. The motives have always been more or less the same and even many of the people too, and there's no mysterious corrupting force that made any of that different then or now.

More money flowed in, technology developed more inroads into more people's lives and thus, the surface area over which the essential nature of tech business (like any business really) could be revealed more clearly expanded. This post is partly deluded.

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#229

Post by SJC_Hacker »

torginus wrote: post #98

Isn't this just shitty capitalism fighting shitty capitalism? If I hire a bunch of super smart AI researchers out of college for a (to them) princely sum of $1M each, then I could go to a VC and have them invest $40m for and 1% stake. Then since these people are smart and motivated, they build something nice, and are first to market with it. If Google wants to catch up, they could either buy the company for $4B, or h…

VCs aren't going to give $40m to a startup for a 1% stake

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#230

Post by BurningFrog »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #219
BurningFrog wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If AI is important, speeding up development of it is good. > We can’t train more people? Of course people are being trained at Universities. Outside of The Matrix, it takes a few years for that to complete.

Nuclear weapons were/are important, speeding up the development of nuclear weapons doesn't seem like it would be good, though.

That's literally what the Manhattan Project was!

I think that was good, but not everyone agrees.

Post reply on HN