awesomeMilou

"Roundup (YC F28): We combat malicious actors posioning training data, so your market forecasts stay where you want them to."

Yeah its soooo interesting! Totally not dystopian, just soooo interesting and fascinating to ponder these scenarios in which corporations hold equal power to national governments!

Just such a curious scenario to let your mind wander about, how society would look like in these scenarios!

/s

I'm honestly so sick of the suspense of disbelief on this site, how is this more "interesting" to you, than the absolute sheer terror you should feel about going back to feudalism and serfdom? A typical western national state ensures that you have basic rights as a human being and aren't exploited to the death by non-government entities.

That was.. obvious? How are you shocked? Honestly, how insane must the suspension of disbelief on this site be, that anyone here is shocked?

This comment is funny, because Berkshire Hathaway's exposure in the housing market uses basically what you said as it's strategy memo.

Hmm I would have hoped for something more formal and that's focused on compiled runtimes, instead of dynamic runtimes

Still, I appreciate you replying, I'm sure you meant to be helpful!

Is there also a self guided course for "basic compilers", before stepping into an advanced level?

you should have read marx, owning the means of production is a fundamental requirement for communism, rendering currency obsolete. one thing that's usually left out though, is that the means of production also have to be so stupidly easy to use, that any ordinary human can make use of them.

it's just not going to be you or me who is going to be within that group of ordinary humans.

> Demonizing people creating things is petty and unbecoming for a political movement.

i think a more rational argument would claim that this isn't about demonizing people who create, it's about societal inequality. i don't think mark zuckerberg, elon musk or larry page and sergey brin got demonized for creating their products in the first 10-15 years after launch, it's what happened after, the accumulation of wealth, the extension of power, that get's any rational person believing in a free market socialist economy nervous.

> Pretending that the people leveraging that capital are somehow guilty of an original sin just by leveraging capital markets, which is really what these screeds against anyone holding controlling interests in companies they were instrumental in creating, seem to be about, leads down a terrible path.

do you think that they should still be forced to leverage their capital within democratic boundaries? because from what i've heard most founders carry significant power due to their wealth and share increasingly anti-libertarian values, to secure their wealth.

if those democratic boundaries prove to be innovation stiffling, fair, that is definitely an issue, but wouldn't it make sense to argue to then try to adjust those boundaries from within the democratic framework?

one could also make the claim that one popular strategy for securing the gains of a succesful innovation is regulatory capture - a strategy that is increasingly employed by large companies to close of markets and secure market monopolies or duopolies.

in a sense, they are stifling innovation themselves by closing a market to competitors, via instrumentalizing what they usually critize: regulation, no?

it's like you said, these can coexist, but from my perception it's as if these billionaires don't want them to coexist.

and im not thinking about regulatory drama involving diesel generators for AI datacenters or anything specific, just the mere power accumulation and general radical tendencies you find with these ultra wealthy interest groups.

per that rationale, since contributions are valued solely by the relative capital value they generate, do you think it would make sense to define the value of a person solely by the value of their contributions?

Yeah okay fair, I was about to post a knee jerk reaction, but it's well known that the US government can obtain higher quality data by just simply buying it from the public market.

By completely eliminating the need for a human workforce, therefore rendering a majority of humanity obsolete, therefore lots of social inequality, therefore lots of starvation, poverty and death.

When billionaires say "think about the trillions of people that will benefit from AI" and some notion of living in a post scarcity world, they are talking about _their_ descendants, not yours.