I switched to a Minimal Phone...it's terrible, and that's the point. The friction of everything being so clunky keeps me from picking it up and staring at it, it's unpleasant to look at and scroll through anything but text. It functions enough to let me acknlowedge a page, pay for parking, or disable the alarm system - but anything other than that is just not appealing.
I'm trying to read more, but it is definitely a struggle when I used to consume books voraciously. I'm definitely getting better though - for instance, I finished this article, at least. Beats scrolling thru /r/funny or something. I'm trying my best to reclaim my brain.
This is undoubtedly true. Agents are extremely analytical and trained to be objective - far more so than humans. They are not driven by emotion. If you have good stuff and you make it extremely clear to everyone through your documentation, this is more likely to be persuasive to agents than to humans.
I for one would prefer a future in which the nuances of a good product can shine through without layers of bullshit.
Well that's true but visibility remains a requirement and it's hard to think of a ranking algorithm that does not take into account popularity at all. Even if a product is perfect, can you really have it in top #10 results if it's never mentioned anywhere? But then if you take into account popularity / citation frequency / etc. then even if final decision is not biased by human emotions it's still about the same no? (battle moves to being in the top 10 results rather than only fighting for first place but levers are the same I guess)
I wish that was the answer to all of these people setting their spouse, their grandmother, their boss loose with LLMs to build sites. It should just be acceptable to have a simple site that conveys information well, and then we wouldn't need to boil the seas to generate pages of shiny slop.
Here's my solution:
Make being a billionaire illegal.
That's it. It's incumbent upon asset-holders to remain under the limit. It's up to them how close to the line they wish to tread.
No one becomes a billionaire ethically...no one produces that level of value, and absolutely no one needs that much money. And we have evidence that it literally breaks your brain when you attain that level of wealth. It's only possible to attain through exploitation. If you are found to hold a billion dollars in assets, you go to prison and forfeit all of your assets, so it's up to them to manage their assets accordingly. Give it away, pay your workers more, distribute it however you want, but a single person cannot be allowed to control that much capital - full-stop.
If you flee the country, any assets you leave behind are forfeit and seized. You will not be allowed to retain the wealth you accumulated on the on the backs of taxpayers and labourers...it will be forcefully redistributed for the public good.
For any country that does this, extreme wealth disparity will be eliminated. If there are countries that allow billionaires exploit the working class and public infrastructure, then they can go build their fortunes there. Equitable, civilised countries will outlaw it. Billionaires only exist because we allow them to.
Someone with less than a billion will be just fine, and can enjoy a reasonable, moderate amount of wealth in peace.
The blog author is the founder of a unicorn and thus (assuming they hold a controlling stake) a billionaire on paper. Should your sanctions apply, and how does that work when their only significant asset is the company shares?
It's unethical to make a million by controlling a drug someone needs to survive or bribing politicians. But it's not unethical to make a billion by writing a popular app, website, book, movie or performing songs.
So the amount is irrelevant, it's the actions that matters, when it comes to ethics.
You have no jurisdiction over other countries, so the country allowing billionaires will end up with the largest companies in any industry, and your small companies will not be competitive. Dystopian end to your country follows.
This isn't easy. Billionaires are often the result of the basic wealth creation of society, which we don't want to sabotage. Amazon employed thousands before Bezos became the richest guy in the US.
We want successful companies that employ thousands of people under good conditions. The more such companies the better, even if each of them creates a billionaire or two in the process.
I think we should allow people to become as wealthy as they can, but ensure that it has to happen through ethical methods. No corruption, rackets, cartels or other shenanigans. No matter how much money you have you can't buy any loopholes.
Of course easier said than done but I don't see another way that can possibly work out well.
Bullshit...they aren't sharing them with the internet archive, and at least the inventory of the defunct bookstore might have ended up with a collector or something. These slop factories have a less sound business model than any given bookstore, and you think they'll preserve those scans and share them with the world? Corporations regularly delete media for utterly capricious reasons.
Here's a multi-billion dollar artificial intelligence to do your work for you!
One caveat, and it’s a real one :
The AI is going to spew incomprehensible word-vomit that makes you feel like you're losing your grip on reality.
So a company with an wildly superior compression algorithm stumbling into a society-breaking AI isn't so far-fetched. Jesus...Silicon Valley really was ahead of its time.
I mean, save for the part where the founders recognised the threat it posed to society and acted responsibly rather than unleashing it on the public and sucking down billions in VC money.
I'm trying to read more, but it is definitely a struggle when I used to consume books voraciously. I'm definitely getting better though - for instance, I finished this article, at least. Beats scrolling thru /r/funny or something. I'm trying my best to reclaim my brain.
reply