jsrozner · HackerTrans

9 giờ trướcdiscuss

And then a million private equity, venture capitalists, management consultants, and other aspiring grifters cried out in terror.

Hopefully they stay silenced.

jsrozner

8 ngày trướcdiscuss

You’re right and wrong: today’s economy is often negative sum from total utility perspective. It hurts society and the person but it helps Mark Suckerberg and Scam Altman and the private equity firms.

It’s positive sum from a wealth-weighted utility calculation though. And that’s why it happens.

jsrozner

26 ngày trướcdiscuss

or, you know, lobbying and oligarchy. great at changing outcomes even when the folks agree.

jsrozner

tháng trướcdiscuss

Following the overturning of Roe v Wade, it is clear that the US needs privacy enshrined in the Constitution. For example, it is absurd to imagine a state government trying to distinguish between an abortion and a miscarriage in order to potentially prosecute; this distinction is something that no one beyond the woman should have any right to know.

It's my view that the Founders did not think to directly mention privacy since they had no capacity to imagine technology as powerful as that which enables today's surveillance capitalists. But the sort of law that would establish a general right to privacy (or the kind of values that would lead us to establish one) would likely also hinder companies from aggregating user data for any purpose other than directly serving users. (And it would also hinder the government from surveilling its citizens.)

If such an amendment were considered, we'd all fast find that most techies aren't actually liberals. Oh wait, we saw that when they all turned to support Trump. Surprise, surprise.

I promise you that when consumer and enterprise funds dry up, every one of these AI companies will be placing ads and selling surveillance and drone tech to the government. Anthropic already dropped the part of its constitution that forbid collaboration of any kind with the military. The pressure to profitability is immense.

Today, purported morality is mostly (temporary) sophistry. Most folks will work for Zsuck or Palantir if the money is good enough.

jsrozner

tháng trướcdiscuss

https://archive.ph/DqPNZ

jsrozner

tháng trướcdiscuss

> How can technology be used to make our society freer and more equal, and to augment human agency rather than diminish it?

The past 20 years of surveillance capitalism and the general deployment of technology against consumers should make everyone question whether this could ever be possible.

jsrozner

tháng trướcdiscuss

META should pay a 20B fine for this one.

jsrozner

tháng trướcdiscuss

This is absurd. You're just asking for reasonable control over data that ostensibly belongs to you. Moreover, this minimum functionality was resolved years ago with RSS. That you'd be willing to pay so much reflects how well every tech company is doing at using tech against its own users.

jsrozner

tháng trướcdiscuss

By law, the English king could do what he pleased to. Somehow most folks still think the American Revolution was just.

jsrozner

tháng trướcdiscuss

Public transit and public places will continue to decline in cleanliness and quality for as long as the rich suck resources out of local municipalities.

They do the same things with public schools (pulling educated teachers to teach in private institutions) and with medical care (pulling physicians into private concierge practice).

If all the rich people had to take public transit and send their kids to public schools, they'd start investing money and (human) energy / capital in making the public infra better.

The investment of resources by rich people into their own private enclaves is entirely rational and can be solved only by wealth taxes that preclude such action (by making it impossible).

jsrozner

tháng trướcdiscuss

This is not true. If a king has all the money, then whatever the king wants is what society builds. The use of resources by tech companies to build self-driving cars uses resources for things that might otherwise have gone to some other approach.

Google's use of resources does not occur in a vacuum. Moreover, if cities decided to pass laws that would slowly transition all road infra away from private vehicles to shared public transit, then Google would lobby against that.

For public transit to function well (i.e. competitively with private vehicles), traffic needs to be much reduced (e.g., imagine no traffic lights and no traffic). Google's private cars on the roads do not move us in that direction. There is no doubt that they are technologically impressive, but they do not provide greater utility than investing in shared infrastructure would.

jsrozner

tháng trướcdiscuss

One of the authors of the linked article (https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.20617) is a computer scientist not an economist. Just bc something is published in arxiv economics does not make it written by an economist.

jsrozner

2 tháng trướcdiscuss

I'll take "A waste of the world's resources for $200k, Alex" *600k, sorry

jsrozner

2 tháng trướcdiscuss

[flagged]

jsrozner

2 tháng trướcdiscuss

Stop thinking about taxes as a way to fund the government.

Money in the long run can buy anything, including political influence. There are no regulations that can effectively preclude this. (And empirically, America over the past 40 years has seen moneyed entities successfully re-align politics and economic policy with their interests -- this was entirely predictable). An unequal society therefore cannot be a democracy. If you believe in democracy, then you necessarily must believe in wealth redistribution. (In fact, I argue that any person who believes that the American Revolution was justified, for any non-trivial reason, will likely find that those the same non-trivial reason could be invoked to reallocate wealth away from today's wealthy.)

Counterarguments to this view (i.e. a different top-level value than democracy / meaningful sovereignty over the society in which one lives) might invoke utilitarianism: an unequal society potentially produces "better" outcomes if capitalism is allowed to run unrestrained.

But a problem this argument encounters is who gets to decide what "better" is? All systems are economic in the long term, including political ones. A good framework for understanding is that a society in the long term is not "one person one vote" but rather "one dollar one vote." Today's preferences are dollar-weighted. Those with money decide what is better. The economy serves the average dollar's interests. And the average dollar's interest are the wealth-weighted preferences of society's members.

We started with an income tax to fund the government. But today our most pressing issue is not funding the government, but not having an oligarchy. Wealth is the thing that most needs to be taxed in order to allow for any semblance of democracy. Analogies drawn to income, though interesting, are meaningless.

jsrozner

2 tháng trướcdiscuss

Yeah maybe we should just stop doing that and invest in public transit infrastructure instead.

jsrozner

2 tháng trướcdiscuss

Rankings not all consistent:

  - private military 6 but defense 39;
  - surveillance tech 7, data brokers 9, but facial recognition 14, social media 17, advertising 34;
  - polluters 3 but coal 26, oil 30, mining 37;
  - scam 5 but clickbait 15, MLMs 18;
  - influencers 22 but ads 34 (influencers *are* ads);

Though some are: e.g.,

  - lobbying / disinformation are close (1,2);
  - escorts, adult platforms, dating, adult content all 47-50 (nice!)

jsrozner

2 tháng trướcdiscuss

By making jokes about the physiognomy, we encourage future applications of eugenics to avoid this unappealing one. This is the right choice as long as the market votes in favor of this post.

There, I used Andreeson's ideas so you can understand it.

jsrozner

2 tháng trướcdiscuss

I personally think this is stupid (e.g., the new interface for selecting functions). The interface on original 84 was better. I still have mine from 15 years ago. I still use it.

jsrozner

3 tháng trướcdiscuss

the US can't build bullet trains because they'd serve the average person and there's no money in serving the average person

comments