pksebben

you can't possibly know that, in the world we live in. Not conclusively - the amount of other factors at play and the ubiquity of those factors - crushing social stratification, pay-to-live capitalism, the overwhelming pressure on people to produce or die (meaning that learning to produce is on them to figure out, and quick, or else.) If you had an example of a society where these things were not at issue, you could more easily make a statement like "their conduct is an unfathomably complex psychiatric issue or otherwise they just need to be punished enough".

It's quite possible that these people would have turned out fine if they grew up provided a path to integrating into society that was less burdensome. It's possible you're right, too, but without controlling for confounding factors there's no way to know.

Oh no, they might stop doing the thing that benefits me and that they were never required to do in the first place.

I would be fascinated to hear what value you think JP Morgan created rather than moved around. His company continues to do so long after his death.

one doesn't go to a gallery to watch the painting get made. Creative coding can still be enjoyed by appreciating the output.

The immediate rebuttal to that might be that "AI could just do it" but that's not entirely true - the sort of art that you (typically) see in a gallery isn't "an accurate representation of the world as viewed" just as a lot of "code as art" isn't "a problem solved with code". The camera captures (mostly accurate) images, and AI is usually writing "code that does a thing".

The expressiveness (can) come from a place that's deeply human, and can yield a product that is tangibly diifferent from what an efficient coding process would normally produce.

A few of us played a game when I was in batch at the Recurse Center - we called it Monstrosity. The game was to build a string in the absolutely least efficient way possible - using the largest stack, the most network hops, the most obfuscatory and difficult methods to create a character (bit-shifting algorithms to make ASCII, anyone?). It was beautiful, and it was the kind of thing that AI would never think to do (at least, not without significant cajoling and even then you'd be missing the point).

"We believe these representations are not serious, they're just really good friends."

That does kind of make it sound like think tanks are normally either straightforward or fundamentally honest about their agendas, which they pretty much never are. Even the ones that register and have DBAs fund reports that end up in scientific journals and publish articles through chains of obfuscatory intermediaries.

Really only possible in broken-futureland, to have a company whose sole purpose is to get paid to have an opinion.

Ah! Sincere apologies for being defensive. Yeah, I share your eye when it comes to orthodoxy in most if not all areas - wary. The problem with any orthodoxy is that it's dumb - not as in 'stupid' but as in 'doesn't think or adapt to changing circumstances'.

Being the most correct 20 years ago is fairly meaningless today - not making a judgement on whether D-Stall is, was, or wasn't. But it's important I think to deal with reality. Thanks for your clarification!

Sorry, but you must be way smarter than me or something because that made no sense. Not that I don't understand what that notation is supposed to mean, but that I'm not seeing the connective tissue here. It's also a little weird to come at me based on the 'erosion of my foundation of beliefs', considering how orthogonal that is to the topic of legal precedent and contracts.

For what it's worth, what I do believe is that our system of law was a good idea at one point but is totally ineffectual in the current context - that's my point about an era of grifters. Didn't get that one from stallman, measured that on the eyeball mark I.

Have you served? Because I have. Still have friends in the service and they are pretty cheesed that they've been roped into this mess. Go ask a lifer what they really think about Smegsbreath some time - I think it will be enlightening.

This line of reason is one I find appealing but somewhat untimely. If I'm grokking the deeper message it's that "limiting licensed use in these creative ways opens the door to potentially evil chicanery" -- i.e. you start limiting licenses to non-police activities and then some corporation goes "great! now that we can do that our licenses now limit usage to only endeavors that boil your firstborn and undermine our competition".

Problem is in era de la grift we've sort of realized that they never needed permission - there's no precedent to set anymore.

Oh, that's lovely. So, if you don't know what the cause is, you can't really say you've mitigated it, can you? C'mere, I wanna honk your big red nose.

Recontextualized: *A person who chooses a career centered around the use of force is more likely to use force in their personal life*.

Ahdunno, where's the lie?

out of curiosity - what scheme do you suggest? I've always been of the mind that 'one thing to remember and secure, but secure it well' was the best option - 2factor and a 15+character passphrase meaning that nearly everything else gets it's own discretized blast radius.

Always open to better security, though.

I'm with you on the uninformed / confident vector in general, but you do seem fairly level-headed so I still want your take on the question: what do we do about it? How do we approach the problem of "most of our problems stem from an intractable information asymmetry, and this could be existential"?

Real question; what are we supposed to do about that information delay when it directly enables corruption and usury? This is an ongoing issue with historical precedent; the repeal of glass-steagall, MKULTRA and COINTELPRO, Iran-contra, watergate, the list is indefinably long.

All of these all surfed in on that very temporal ambiguity, and the fact that we have zero recourse in a plurality of cases - a situation that has eroded over time, not gotten better, and could feasibly be credited with a large part of the palpable social decay that real people are suffering from every day right now.

So what do we do about it? "Indulging in plausible conspiracy theories" could also be read here as "trying to get out ahead of this imminent yet undclear threat"