eli_gottlieb

Ok but then what are you actually contributing?

> If I have a team of 20, making a lot of money, but I think I can do the exact same job with 15 because of AI productivity gains, should I keep the other 5 employed for the vibes?

Well no, you should keep the other five to increase your output even more and make even more money.

Look, I'm all in favor of fully automated (gay, space) luxury communism, but as long as work remains a major component of civil society, one of the few truly social institutions left, people will identify with it. Which makes it a problem that while a vocation needs to be lifelong to justify the time-investment of cultivating skill and experience, employment has become a rather short-term, feast-or-famine phenomenon.

For those of us who aren't in management, if the companies want to lay people off, what actually stops them from just doing it?

Probably more because number (of humans employed and how much they're paid) go down.

~~Yeah, that's NP-complete problems.~~

EDIT: DISREGARD THAT I WAS MISTAKEN

> Inasmuch as you’re reading translations upon translations, sure. But none of that is necessary.

No, even if you read in the original language. Languages are living, communal things.

Ok, but when you're reading Homer or Socrates or the Bible (we're relatively sure it has several different authors), you're still engaging with a communal tradition of fellow readers who, in large part, define what it actually means to understand the text. If you read the Odyssey and decide it was actually about Pokemon, you're misreading it.

> Why? Because this is where all the money is.

Well no, it's not. If finding inefficiencies in capital markets was the most profitable thing to do, the capital markets would never invest in anything but themselves. Recursion hits bottom somewhere and investors, at some point, want to invest in a real business, not just in a recursive investment vehicle.

I can't really take credit for the insight: we've had this Discourse ten thousand times over in the Dune fandom groups on Facebook and Discord.

As I understand the book's appendices, the Buddhislamic syncretism and the formation of the Zensunni sect happened before the Missionaria Protectiva ever got to them, so at one point it was authentic.

Ok, but besides today's models mostly not being trained to find those inefficiencies, who says that finding them is actually the most profitable thing to do with a good brain? I know Juergen Schmidhuber likes it, but why should capital markets be the test of intelligence?

Zensunni was an authentic religion after what Herbert implies was a "Buddhislamic" syncretism in which, according to their beliefs, Muhammad reincarnated.

The prophecy of the messianic leader the "Voice of the Outer/Occulted World" was what the Bene Gesserit planted to exploit.

Hi Yousef,

What do you have to say to the typical response that Villeneuve erased Islam from the Dune films - and I agree he did! - to avoid defaming Islam? Paul Atreides, after all, is a villain protagonist or tragic antihero, not a hero. While Herbert wrote Muad'dib's Jihad as historically analogous to the early rise of Islam under Muhammad and the Rightly Guided Caliphs, that's quite an unflattering impression of Islam to give people in our day and age, even given that the historical analogy does hold and that people in Amazigh, Arab, and Muslim societies see themselves in the Fremen and in Dune broadly.

Because it turns out capital markets are actually reasonably efficient and throwing more "brains" at them yields steeply diminishing returns in increased allocative efficiency, compared to deploying those same "brains" as capital to produce output commodities?