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

Reflections on Palantir

nabeelqu.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 658 posts

Re: Reflections on Palantir

#621

Post by moolcool »

deltarholamda wrote: post #579
moolcool wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you taken a university level ethics course before? They teach the different ethical frameworks, where they come from, and then get you to apply them to different situations. The classes don't tell you what's right and what's wrong, but rather, the different frameworks people can use to determine that.

Is it required that you attend a university-level ethics course to learn how to apply ethical frameworks? Very ecclesiastical. But it would explain why we can't leave this sort of thing to the laity of parents. In any event, the poster I replied to also included "morality" alongside "ethics", which is why I suggest it's not as cut and dried as you imply.

It's important because ethics is a really complicated subject built on thousands of years of study and thought. It's worthy of being taught by an actual scholar who dedicated their life to understanding the field.

Parents can teach right and wrong, but they seldom teach about things like utilitarianism or hedonic treadmills.

Re: Reflections on Palantir

#622

Post by tanjtanjtanj »

tucnak wrote: post #616
lioeters wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've all read it, thanks.

Evidently not; if only to unsatisfactory effect! Faust is one of these stories that you don't just "read" once, but revisit rather—at many different moments in one's life. Better yet there's a pragmatic aspect to it beyond the poetic: actually grasping the Faustian will equip you to use all the clever words and devices that you wish (and yet, currently fail miserably) to use adequately.

Could you please help us better understand the work or at least let us know what is missing in nuance from the above poster’s usage?

The usage you are criticizing is the common understanding of the term “Faustian bargaining” but it seems that you have a better understanding and it would be nice to be better informed.

Re: Reflections on Palantir

#623

Post by soulofmischief »

next_xibalba wrote: post #552
moolcool wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you taken a university level ethics course before? They teach the different ethical frameworks, where they come from, and then get you to apply them to different situations. The classes don't tell you what's right and what's wrong, but rather, the different frameworks people can use to determine that.

SBF's mom is a legal ethicist at Stanford. Beyond her son, how many others has she mis-educated? Or, perhaps, a semester or two of ethics is insufficient and thus a waste of time and money?

Evidence of individual corruption is not an indication that we should not teach ethics altogether. This is why ethics need to be taught, so that people are better equipped to weed out bad actors.

That said, who did SBF largely derive his ethics from? His parents, at home, not at his mom's lectures. So all this does is illuminate why it's important for people to get exposed to a wider variety of opinions and ethical considerations.

Re: Reflections on Palantir

#624

Post by tucnak »

tanjtanjtanj wrote: post #622
tucnak wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evidently not; if only to unsatisfactory effect! Faust is one of these stories that you don't just "read" once, but revisit rather—at many different moments in one's life. Better yet there's a pragmatic aspect to it beyond the poetic: actually grasping the Faustian will equip you to use all the clever words and devices that you wish (and yet, currently fail miserably) to use adequately.

Could you please help us better understand the work or at least let us know what is missing in nuance from the above poster’s usage? The usage you are criticizing is the common understanding of the term “Faustian bargaining” but it seems that you have a better understanding and it would be nice to be better informed.

Sure, it's not so much "nuance" as being read into the Western literary tradition. We should hate to be controversial. So, bargaining for money as it's attainable in principle, doesn't constitute a Faustian: you can make more money, you may even make lots of it, & mechanics of it are pretty well-understood. Needs no intervention. The reason why the Faustian transcends human experience is precisely because what's transferred in the process is unattainable. In other words, you don't need a superhuman entity to make a buck or gain some power. That's inconsequential, really. And otherwise quite boring, too, even as far as "evil" goes. The Faustian involves trading something essential and irreplaceable (like one's soul) for something that is otherwise impossible for a human to attain, such as unlimited knowledge. It's never about personal gain, but about transcending human condition in a way that comes at an ultimate, irreversible cost.

I don't know if Thiel or Andreessen ever made morally questionable decisions, and indeed I can only laugh at the notion that whatever decisions they have made would appear consequential in somebody's eyes. I find this obsession with famous men in commerce—pathetic, and ultimately indicative of a lesser mind. But to bring Goethe here—reduce great art to a tool of envy and true impotence—now, I find that deeply offensive. I say: Don't pollute the beautiful things with your petty personal politics and fixations. If the beautiful is not important to you—doesn't mean it's not important to others.

Otherwise, the Faustian in your mind might cheap-skate into uselessness when it comes to reading/understanding the truly exceptional acts.

Die Tat ist alles, nichts der Ruhm!

Re: Reflections on Palantir

#625

Post by tucnak »

ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #594
tucnak wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it have to do with Faust? Israel is not a superhuman thing of any kind, and it doesn't possess superhuman knowledge.

Oh you seem to misunderstand. They are all clamoring for a seat at the table. It is easy to buy seats from one side of the political sphere. They do not understand that they will be kicked to the ground, once they get what they need.

I think they may be far-gone in the sense that they themselves don't really believe they got a chance at the seat. Similar to how the communists are unhappy because despite everything, including personal fortunes and successes, deep down a communist believer sees himself as incomplete, insufficient, uncommitted. He may make some money, acquire influence, respect of his peers, perhaps even his bosses—and yet, he would in his own eyes remain a proletariat still, self-despised for allowing himself to be exploited so.

Had they truly believed they were not impotent, they wouldn't obsess over business-men.

Re: Reflections on Palantir

#626

Post by int_19h »

ArtixFox wrote: post #572
int_19h wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-defense is supposed to be proportional. If you're killing 30x as many people in "response", and most of them weren't in any way involved in the original attack, that's not justifiable.

Self defense is not seen based on how many skulls you collected. Hamas needs to go and that's how Israel will do it's self defense. Proportionality has nothing to do with self defense. Hamas the org was involved, and the other ones too, they are the target. But I do agree that Israel's policies regarding air strikes are fucked up

Proportionality is what makes self-defense defense, and not an excuse to kill people.

The vast majority of the people who are killed in those strikes are not Hamas.

Re: Reflections on Palantir

#627

Post by tanjtanjtanj »

tucnak wrote: post #624
tanjtanjtanj wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please help us better understand the work or at least let us know what is missing in nuance from the above poster’s usage? The usage you are criticizing is the common understanding of the term “Faustian bargaining” but it seems that you have a better understanding and it would be nice to be better informed.

Sure, it's not so much "nuance" as being read into the Western literary tradition. We should hate to be controversial. So, bargaining for money as it's attainable in principle, doesn't constitute a Faustian: you can make more money, you may even make lots of it, & mechanics of it are pretty well-understood. Needs no intervention. The reason why the Faustian transcends human experience is precisely because what's tran…

Thanks for responding in such detail, I appreciate it.

So because of the supernatural elements of acquiring the unattainable would you say that it is unusable as a real world metaphor or analogy?

Or is there a real life example that you believe would fall under the category of a Faustian Bargain?

Re: Reflections on Palantir

#628

Post by int_19h »

guappa wrote: post #608
int_19h wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe has the "pie" in form of considerable (by standards of most of the rest of the world, including US) welfare benefits. I don't think it's particularly surprising that people who have access to it today don't want to share. The legal vs illegal distinction is really mostly about that - when it's legal, it can be significantly curtailed (and the same people who are against illegal immigration saying "just go thro…

What welfare benefits? Are you living 50 years ago?

Unemployment insurance, free healthcare, and some form of guaranteed retirement income are nearly universal. To maintain these at the same levels, you need a certain proportion of people who work in relatively high-paid jobs and pay correspondingly high taxes. Which is precisely why immigration systems in most developed countries emphasize skilled immigration.

Re: Reflections on Palantir

#629

Post by tucnak »

tanjtanjtanj wrote: post #627
tucnak wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it's not so much "nuance" as being read into the Western literary tradition. We should hate to be controversial. So, bargaining for money as it's attainable in principle, doesn't constitute a Faustian: you can make more money, you may even make lots of it, & mechanics of it are pretty well-understood. Needs no intervention. The reason why the Faustian transcends human experience is precisely because what's tran…

Thanks for responding in such detail, I appreciate it. So because of the supernatural elements of acquiring the unattainable would you say that it is unusable as a real world metaphor or analogy? Or is there a real life example that you believe would fall under the category of a Faustian Bargain?

No, not at all it's not! The most beautiful thing about the Faustian is that it's very much applicable. You know what they say: the virtual is just as important as the real, if not more important. Like any device in language, the very application thereof is what defines, attracts, multiplies its meaning. (To risk being exactly philosophical about it: see Wittgenstein.) For something to be real, or indeed for a device like the Faustian to be useful—it must be rooted in reality, not supernatural. And yet some Acts are so exceptional, the thoughts that make them so–are so elegant, it helps to read them as divine so as not to risk colouring it mundane!

I'm sure you've come across acts and thoughts like that.

If you eliminate the mundane like "power" and moneys, what remains? Well, plenty remains in fact. Imagine a scientist that would try and test dangerous experimental new drugs on themselves—to save their dying daughter—disregarding the established process, in spite of conventional wisdom. There have been cases like that, and sometimes they succeed. Sometimes they don't, but it's not the outcome that makes it interesting but the act itself; this theme is explored in the second act of Faust.

I'm personally fascinated by modern-day AI researchers who have clearly made the deal, and might as well succeed in it someday to build something truly godlike with no actual regard to the contemporary ontologies of human well-being. The poetic quality is beautiful in its simplicity: as long as the irreplaceable is bartered for the divine, the Faustian applies. The distribution of moneys as well as boring ideological presuppositions need not apply.

Post reply on HN