miyoji

> I’m not sure how you came to believe there aren’t rules in life, but there absolutely are.

This is why I fucking hate commenting on this website. You know exactly what I meant but you wrote this bullshit anyway.

> If I sit down to play chess with Magnus Carlsen I can't predict the exact moves he'll use to defeat me, but that's a bad reason to think he won't defeat me

This is a very bad analogy because chess isn't life. In chess, you aren't allowed to do whatever you want. There are rules. I know for a fact that Magnus Carlsen won't beat me using checkers moves and he won't beat me by pulling out a gun and telling me to resign. Magnus Carlsen's skill at chess leading to his victory in chess is not a valid analogy here, because there's no law of nature that says "the more intelligent entity wins in a battle for survival".

You could have infinite superintelligence and still die inside a locked room to which you have no key. "Superintelligence" is not a magic solution to every problem, you can constrain any superintelligence with any unsolvable problem.

Just less important than personally making generational wealth.

> I don't care if the Waymo isn't "truly" intelligent, it drives better than I do, that's a very good thing.

The funny thing about Waymos is that they seem amazing driving all on their own everywhere until it rains (as it did where I live for the last two days), then they're suddenly nowhere to be seen, because they can't operate correctly in conditions that I've been driving in for my entire life.

This is a metaphor for AI as a whole.

You're the one calling people horses. I'm the one saying, "No, you're probably better than that." Which one of us is being rude here?

Only if you accept that you are as stupid and unadaptable as a horse.

The problem remains the same. If you have to change the same value in n places, you need to know that the AI correctly updated it in those n places, so knowing what they are is prerequisite to claiming that the AI got it right.

You can't have it both ways. "The AI always does it right" and "I can't keep track of all the places where the change must be made, but the AI can" are incompatible and contradictory ideas. If you can't keep track of all the places that need to be changed, you can't check that the AI did it right.

I'm not arguing that the government's actions towards Anthropic are fair, but you're making the argument that no government should ever be allowed to designate any company as a supply chain risk, and that's ludicrous.

> Another issue with looking at code, is that it's very hard to manually change things anyway. I can't just change a variable from 10 to 20, because I don't know where it is used.

This should be a giant flashing red light. If you can't figure this out, either 1) you're too junior to be effective using AI, or 2) the AI is doing a truly awful job organizing the codebase. In either case, it's a sign to slow things down and understand what's happening before proceeding.

> Private property and being able to run your firm on your own terms applies to everyone.

In theory, maybe. In reality, this is a privilege for a very small number of rich people.

> Anything that erodes the rights of companies erodes your rights.

How absurd. Food safety regulations don't erode my rights one bit, but they do erode the rights of companies to negligently poison me. I guess I'm losing the right to start a food company that poisons people, but I'm happy to forfeit that right in exchange for not being poisoned. We could extend this list of reasonable tradeoffs in which we all exchange the right to treat people poorly for the right not be treated poorly, and we all would benefit.

Except the people who want to sell poisoned food, those people will be worse off. I am okay with that.

Big organizations don't enable greater technological progress, which is why companies do 98% of their innovation before they get huge, and get bad at innovating once they are.

Big organizations enable scaling and associated economies of scale, so it's possible for Apple to sell millions of iPhones cheaper than if they were a smaller company. I don't think that tradeoff is worth it for any individual consumer (pay a little less to be much more abused by the company), and I don't think it's worth it for society.

Most of the big corporations in America aren't providing things as useful as MRI machines, they're providing net negative garbage like social media and advertising. Big corporations like United Healthcare Group are inflating the cost of medical care rather than providing economies of scale and reduced cost for their clients.

The US desperately needs to bring back antitrust and start breaking these massive companies into much smaller pieces.

> In a large enough organization it is simply impossible for executives to be on the ground floor with everyone else. And not only is it impossible, it is essentially a waste of their time. They could maybe be maximally involved in only a few projects at a time.

This is a very strong argument that no organization should be allowed to get that big.

> I guess we were all lacking wisdom.

Yes, economists famously do, and they also lack intelligence and knowledge given that their theories keep being proven wrong by reality but they never update them.

> If human "skill" and "imagination" are your requirements for interesting, you're going to become permanently bored fairly soon I reckon.

What? Why? This has been my bar for my entire life, and I've never been bored for a single second.