> But they're public entities and they're using the pittance of investment as a force multiplier on their stock price, which they're then regularly using to raise capital.
That's not how that works. Their stock price is not directly correlated with them raising capital since Nvidia has not issued new shares (or sold shares on the open market) since their IPO. Their corporate bond is also not based on, or relies on, the stock price since they must be paid back in cash.
I would say no if the question was asked of me. It’s like asking if you’d feel bad about marriage if you ended up divorced with a child. Or if you’d feel bad about commenting if it made someone feel like they lost brain cells.
The morality of an action isn’t based on actual consequences because the future isn’t known in advanced. All we can do is act on the perceived consequences of our actions, and if we think those are good, pursue them.
> Stranded energy is basically energy which should be used but its commercially a lot more efficient to do energy abitrage with a global finance market with a local energy market.
Incorrect. Stranded energy is energy that can’t be used and is wasted instead.
> And no 3% for provoding gambling and only a small amount of money value is a bad joke.
Thinking it only provides gambling is an opinion. One I disagree with.
> Bitcoin is responsible for a gas powerp lant in NYC being turned on again. It only mines bitcoins now. It creates just heat and co2.
Just like many things in life, Bitcoin the protocol is not responsible but the participants in the system. Regardless I don’t see a power plant being turned on as inherently a bad thing.
You don’t see it as worth it but the people who pay for it do. Who are you to decide what an entity chooses to legally utilize their power for?
> they also make their place they live and the rest of the planet a tiny bit worse due to the energy consumption
Energy consumption isn't the problem. It's how the energy is generated that is relevant to planetary health, and even then, whose to say the tradeoff isn't worth it. Crypto mining is estimated to take up 3% at most which means 97% is spent on other things. What makes this other 97% more worthy of this energy than crypto mining? The fact you don't see it as valuable?
Also many mining operations take advantage of stranded energy, so energy that would go to waste if not used for on-site mining.
What's your definition of a "regular" database? If you need a distributed, well-sequenced, auditable trail of cryptographically signed operations representing the transfer of value, that quite literally can be fit to match the definition of a blockchain.
What are you thinking of when you say "complete collapse"? Zimbabwe's currency collapsed yet they still had access to electricity and a networks. It sounds like you're envisioning an apocalypse.
Banks racked up huge losses on subprime mortgages, get bailed out to save customer deposits which the banks continue to profit from, most bank execs walk away scot-free, and that's a vindication of the system? They literally gambled with customer funds, lost it all by enriching incompetent sellers of bad MBS, and got it replaced by the government. With the money supply being inflated from the replacement, the only people who benefitted were the bad actors who still have a share of the now diluted supply of customer funds.
From a stablecoin perspective holding USDC or USDT is almost like having a bank account with a bank who, for the most part, allows you to maintain your privacy as an individual. They don't need a name, address, phone number, etc. They also run on infrastructure that exists beyond any single jurisdiction and spans countries and continents. This means that bank account can be used anywhere that has internet and people willing to transact. No government can keep you within their confines by holding your funds hostage nor can political leaders (or others with positions of power) use those controls to silence public outcry or civil disobedience.
> but wages for the majority of them will go further and further down until they become roughly equivalent to the average minimum wage, if they are not outsourced entirely.
In your framework, can't this be said for all jobs in the long tail of technological development? This is also assuming we get to a point where there is no need for a human to coordinate models and prioritize tasks, otherwise the job will become that.
> Many people will attempt to transition to a non-tech field if the number of available jobs and the wages are not commensurate
In this world where AI is good enough that most tech jobs aren't present due to outsourcing, why wouldn't the progress extend to other 'non-tech' jobs? I assume you use 'non-tech' to refer to jobs with physical labor but the field of robotics is always getting better. With the cost of writing software for them going down to 0, we should expect jobs in this domain to be scarce as well.
> Rent won't really go down, and the price of other things will likely continue to rise or stagnate
There's only so high a landlord can make rent without losing tenants and stacking losses due to mortgages or property taxes. Otherwise they're just paying the government for capital that could be used more efficiently elsewhere.
> As AI 'knowledge' is populated by more and more countries with different languages and priorities, English- and some other language speakers will be squeezed out
English is the most popular language in the world even being used as common languages. by countries that don't have it as their native language. I don't think there's any basis for this.
> At some point, looking for work is something AIs will discourage us from doing, if they don't already
I don't believe this accurately captures where AI is today. It is not good enough to be left to its own devices in most fields.
> Are we not, like, pricing ourselves out of our own careers (and planet?)
Planet? If AI is being built to prioritize helping humanity, what reason is there to believe that a superintelligence would push us out? Unless you're assuming we'd mess up alignment so bad that they'd form other priorities where eliminating/removing humans is the best way to go about it.
Like the flawed paperclip AI thought experiment that assumes an AI with an unreasonably narrow goal can understand enough of the world's structure to combat humans on every front. Having such a narrow failure case makes it surprisingly hard to realize given we have a hard time aligning trained models to narrow things we want it to steer towards. For better or worse our training methods, and emergent behavior that arises from it, makes having such an inconsistently unaligned view of the world unlikely in my opinion.
> But 100 million small folk sufficiently annoyed with something changes a government (for better and for worse), whilst having basically zero influence over a corporation
They don't have influence because you designed them to be so. You said they're not the customer and implied they have no influence over customers.
Your argument says 100 million small folk in the same government jurisdiction have more government say vs 100 million small folk have in a company they have nothing to do with. That seems clear.
The inverse relation could also be said though. 100 million small folk in different government jurisdictions have less say in a government they have nothing to do with than 100 million customers of the same company do with a corporation.
> This implicitly assumes that the future government wouldn't implement the non-beneficial regulations if the current government doesn't do the beneficial ones
No, there is another case you haven't covered. The situation in which regulation, made in the best of its ability to combat a problem at the time, now hinders progress more than it helps. Either the incentives were malformed and misaligned from the start, or the solution was targeting an ephemeral problem and written in a way where interpretations can be abused to target newer solutions for newer problems.
> Let's take your argument to it's extreme point: The state should never regulate anything because the state might be bad!
I'm not convinced you understand the sentiment of the parent comment. It's that one should consider all possible scenarios of one's actions when making requests of a powerful entity they can't control. The mechanics of government make it such that once something is under their control, it'll be more effort to remove those controls than what it took to initially add them.
It should also be expected that legitimate regime changes can put people in power that current lobbyists may disagree with. Lobbyists should then be conscious that by lobbying for regulation, they implicitly trust that the will of the people will always align with what they think is best for the industry being regulated in the long term (otherwise they wouldn't be lobbying or would do so in a way that confines the power to the current administration).
The game theory should make is that those teams that recurring lay lose customers due to issues will be punished accordingly. If they aren’t, then maybe the problems that result from shipping fast don’t impact customer retention as much as might think.
That's not how that works. Their stock price is not directly correlated with them raising capital since Nvidia has not issued new shares (or sold shares on the open market) since their IPO. Their corporate bond is also not based on, or relies on, the stock price since they must be paid back in cash.