Live data from Hacker News

Terence Tao: The role of small organizations in society has shrunk significantly

mathstodon.xyz

501–510 of 592 posts

Re: Terence Tao: The role of small organizations in society has shrunk significantly

#501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- What if Google didn't have more money than god, and couldn't afford to bankroll Waymo ~10b? - Would TSMC have gotten as far if Apple couldn't reliably buy out months of capacity on the next node, bankrolling TSMC's tech development? - Would we even have >10B-param LLMs at all? There is something to be said for the concentration of resources, such that they can be deployed on projects with payoffs years or decades l…

Large projects need resources, but who decides how those resources are deployed, to what end, and who benefits from them is the important part. All of your examples are profit-driven, and not necessarily (even if we do benefit) done for the greater good of all or advancement of society. We can still accomplish big innovations without those innovations coming from, or being controlled, by nation-state private companie…

Adam Smith points out that it doesn't matter if things are done for the greater good or not. Them existing will improve lives for everybody either way.

The problem with government funded large project is that they often monopolize. In the Soviet Union to much investment was flowing into the wrong stuff. And small scale innovation didn't get the resources to grow.

While mistakes on a high level lead to total stagnation. For example NASA building the Shuttle crowed out almost everything else, and because the Shuttle was the wrong way to go the US has spent 50 years doubling down on that.

If a large company makes a really, really big bet on something, they can pay a very large cost if they are wrong. And this has been historically the case, large projects that don't get anywhere are canceled. Governments can double down almost forever.

So I think we do need everything, innovation from maverick individuals, innovation from smaller companies, large innovation form big companies, innovation from government project, innovation from private/government funded universities.

There is no perfect 'this is the way to get innovation' that we have yet discovered.

Re: Terence Tao: The role of small organizations in society has shrunk significantly

#502

Great post. One lesser known factor that's contributing to this problem is bank consolidation in the US. * Big banks prefer to lend to big companies because it's more profitable to make one $100M loan than 1,000 $100k loans. * Banks also prefer to lend for non-productive consumption like mortgages because loans backed by hard assets are less risky than productive loans to small businesses, despite those loans not con…

Surely the interest rates on 1000 100k loans are going to cumulatively exceed the interest on a single 100M loan by a significant amount.

Those 1000 loans are going to result in millions more interest per year than a single 100M prime loan.

Re: Terence Tao: The role of small organizations in society has shrunk significantly

#503
post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You ask your questions rhetorically as though the answer would be bad if they didn't. None of those really have had a profound good impact on the population at large and it's not clear that they're all that truly impactful in a good way to the population at large. I think we wouldn't notice or care by and large, and it's just because some nerd somewhere is excited for next product is not a good reason for centraliZat…

Have you ridden in a Waymo? I'd sell my car if/when they become ubiquitous enough.

Self-driving EVs are not a solution to most of the externalities of personal automobiles. No means of transport is that requires twenty square meters of space and 2000 kg of matter to move 1.4 persons at a time on average.

It’s not even clear as of now whether they have a net positive effect on the society, even if they ever become viable in climates that aren’t always sunny.

Re: Terence Tao: The role of small organizations in society has shrunk significantly

#504
post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In today’s world is it actually in our best interest to have the government break up large organizations? Or is that the worse of 2 evils? The state derives a lot of its power globally from wealth, influence, military power (funded by wealth). The state is only as powerful as it is - and only as capable as it is at promoting American interests in the world because it has many of the biggest winner-take-all corporatio…

> In today’s world is it actually in our best interest to have the government break up large organizations? I genuinely struggle to think of a social ill we're currently facing that isn't down in one way or another to some mega-entity acting against the public interest with no fears of reprisal because it is "too big to fail." > A world where it breaks them up while China keeps them is probably a world where China is…

You can't come up with any social ills caused by the federal government?

Re: Terence Tao: The role of small organizations in society has shrunk significantly

#505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While rose-tinted glasses are a huge factor, I feel like a big part of what people dream of when looking back on the last century is not just leisure, but stability and dignity. Stability in that you had jobs that lasted a lifetime and paid a pension once you retired, not layoffs every couple years. Dignity in that anyone could get a real, important, meaningful (and very rough, once you take off said rose-tinted glas…

What makes a coal miner that much more meaningful than a wal mart stocker?

Coal used to power entire countries, and it still runs our steel mills. American industrial might and American quality of life was only possible because of our coal miners. A Walmart stocker puts cheap Chinese stuff on shelves.

The typical romanticized coal miner is a masculine figure, a breadwinner, the representative of an industry that might have been core to the family and town for generations. A Walmart stocker is a guy in a T-shirt. Walmart itself is famous for... pricing out local businesses whenever it comes to a small town.

I'm not at all denying that it's a culture and glorification thing. I just think this is a factor people sometimes miss when looking at how a lot of the country is nostalgic for the 20th century economy, and why people keep wanting (mostly via vibes) to reindustrialize America.

Re: Terence Tao: The role of small organizations in society has shrunk significantly

#506
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Large projects need resources, but who decides how those resources are deployed, to what end, and who benefits from them is the important part. All of your examples are profit-driven, and not necessarily (even if we do benefit) done for the greater good of all or advancement of society. We can still accomplish big innovations without those innovations coming from, or being controlled, by nation-state private companie…

> but who decides how those resources are deployed The current system selects people that have allocated resources effectively in the past by providing them more resources to allocate. > We've ran high-risk R&D projects successfully before as public projects And what is stopping countries from doing this today? This isn't an either or thing, public projects can still exist, there is no law of nature saying that massi…

To be concrete, I guess in a different time and society someone like Sam Altman would have been a successful politician or perhaps like Hyman Rickover or Marcel Boiteux working within the government to cause colossal steps in progress.

Re: Terence Tao: The role of small organizations in society has shrunk significantly

#507
> Extreme levels of wealth, consolidation and economic consolidation breeds dark triad personality traits. Beyond a critical mass of net worth further increases rapidly expand the power of those traits.

Well said, although I feel almost unable to even parse the second sentence.

Re: Terence Tao: The role of small organizations in society has shrunk significantly

#508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is classic circular reasoning. Why should they have all money? Well because they are the best ones at allocating the resources. How do we know they are best at allocating resources? Because they have all the money.

This reminds me of the old dusty adage: "To him that hath, more shall be given and to him that hath not, more shall be taken away" I suppose it was more popular in seemingly simpler times when the playing field was more even and the players more evenly matched and distributed. But here we are in the future, and that game seems to have been concluded. I myself rather preferred the view from the shoulders of giants tha…

There is a agent simulation paradigm where a large amount ofagents engage in one-on-one transactions and wealth is transferred. I haven't followed but decades ago there was a simulation where with rather simpler rules, in the end all the wealth concentrated to one agent.

In this model, it's the rules of the game, not the morality of the players that causes the effects.

Re: Terence Tao: The role of small organizations in society has shrunk significantly

#509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In today’s world is it actually in our best interest to have the government break up large organizations? I genuinely struggle to think of a social ill we're currently facing that isn't down in one way or another to some mega-entity acting against the public interest with no fears of reprisal because it is "too big to fail." > A world where it breaks them up while China keeps them is probably a world where China is…

You can't come up with any social ills caused by the federal government?

I mean it largely depends how you define that. I can think of a lot of social ills the government isn't working to solve... poverty, houselessness, poor funding of schools in general, the ongoing deterioration of social programs, but I wouldn't say they're the cause of those issues?

Fact is when you scratch even fingernail deep on any of them you find the private sector, far more often than not. The welfare state is in tatters because numerous components of it have been privatized and are operated by contracted companies who are siphoning off substantial amounts of the utter pittance we dedicate to the problem itself, which means what gets to the people who need it is even more a pittance than it started as.

The houseless issue is perpetuated in part by local governments zoning restrictions and the myriad of issues around building them here, from supplies to labor availability, and also a substantial contributor is the fact that huge amounts of homes are being purchased by investment companies and hoarded either without people in them, or are rented out in which case worker's earned income is being siphoned off to those already far wealthier than they need to be.

Poor funding of schools is often due to a whole mess of factors relating both to how we as a society prioritize education (or don't, more often) and the fact that a school's funding is heavily dependent on property taxes around where it is operating, which means under served areas have less quality schools from the off, which means less educated people with less money to spend, which means less economic activity, which means less property taxes and so on and so forth.

And in all of these and many other problems you have the elephant in the room: lobbying. Corporations spend billions to lobby the government to do even less than it does about these and a bunch of other issues, chief among them to permit said corporations to hold more money, a solid portion of which can then be spent on yet more lobbying. And certainly the government and it's politicians aren't simply helpless patsies in that arrangement, I also would hold the people making the decisions to route that money far more responsible.

Re: Terence Tao: The role of small organizations in society has shrunk significantly

#510
Terence is brushing up against the classical principle of subsidiarity. If we respected this principle, we would make decision making, policy, and law as local as possible, only kicking things up the ladder if the local cannot deal with them effectively.

Hyperindividualism, paradoxically, destroys smaller societies and organizations, because the hyperindividual doesn't want to be tied down by them through commitment. Globalism is the inevitable result of hyperindividualism, because it creates the largest possible space for the hyperindividual to move about, at the cost of the local. And this moving about, because it is so solitary and transient, leads to transient encounters only, like the shallow and empty hookup culture, or increasingly, the entirely solitary porn culture.

The first, most fundamental, and most local of societies is the family. So it should not come as a surprise that when the family suffers, all of society suffers. The more local something is, the more personal, and all friendships and the like are personal. (Marriage is one such friendship, but it is an obstacle to the hyperindividual who's "got to be ME!". Marriage is the foundation of the family, and so naturally, its destruction means the aforementioned destruction of the family.)

We live in a solipsistic age of the supreme, defiled self whose apex is something like a slob glued to his recliner and plugged into a VR headset, a dildo, and a feeding tube.

Post reply on HN