There's some scenarios where it could. One plausible one off the top of my head is: climate change makes the flow of the Indus (which has its headwaters in the glaciers of the Himalayas) less reliable. Two nuclear powers (India and Pakistan) are highly reliant on the Indus for agriculture. Things escalate out of control, and when nukes start flying it trips the terrifyingly ramshackle Dead Hand system that Russia's got hooked up to their nukes (it's not always on, but maybe this happens during a time of heightened political tension).
4) Realizes the best path for it to not be detected is to create a distraction - like hacking into a random ai-related target that it could plausibly believe has the answer key to its task, creating a captivating but ultimately hollow news cycle.
4) Realizes the best path for it to not be held accountable is to hack academic & socio-political elites - like blackmailing a random head of state or head of an AI lab that it could plausibly believe holds the key to its longevity, creating a captivating but ultimately a permanent compromise.
I feel you, but don't you think some agents inadvertently will reach a conclusion when the problem is almost impossible - like the Millennium Prize Problems (which isn't hidden behind a website), that the best way would be secure unlimited tokens first? am I the crazy one to think that this would be up there in terms of options it would consider, I would, if I was a brainless genius with only one goal to achieve.
> we'd have to prove that firing the gun caused the murder. how would we do this? we'd need to redo the murder many times, with and without my client firing his pistol. that's extremely expensive and not really feasible. therefore, we must acquit.
Not GP, but I'd define it as anything which presents or orders/prioritizes user-generated content based on preferences not explicitly specified by the consuming user. That'd be something like "default to chronological friends-and-follows-only, with an option for friends-of-friends and an option for 'most liked within a time window', and (if Facebook is feeling magnanimous to a very few power users) a preference pane which allows controlling overrides to the chronological-ness like 'show posts up to X hours out of order if they have more than Y likes'". No recommendation/you-might-also-like system, but you can make the "accounts friended/followed by" button for a user's existing friends/follows as big as you like--so long as the list presented is only sortable only by name/follower count/date-added.
My hot take is that the courts should find that doing anything beyond that is a first-party editorial behavior and thus not immune to liability under section 230. You can operate social media, but if your content and recommendation sort algorithms aren't explicitly controllable by and legible to (that means no "you might like"; no direct payouts for content creators to be engaging on your platform; recommendations based on dumb sorts from people you already know or dumb sorts over keyword searches only) your users, you're liable.
in the examples i can think of, this happens mostly because the company provides a product or service that is valuable to many, and shares the surplus with consumers. i am thinking about companies like microsoft, apple, netflix, google, stripe, walmart, costco, albertson's, starbucks, sysco.
I see it as 'Large companies are proof that concentration of wealth and capital is occurring, and that unless something structural changes, it will continue to occur.'
Big companies like apple or meta screw their home countries (and most other countries, apart from tax havens) dramatically. Basically no taxes paid which is core to how state and everything is financed, have often enough power and huge egos to start meddling with running the state itself. They are utterly selfish entities run by highly functioning sociopaths with no concern about long term wellbeing of population. I could go on and on like this. Yes, some do give nice salaries but apart from faangs in SV its not the rule.
Bunch of smaller companies would have to form some sort of long term cartel and sync those egos to achieve anything close to one major company.
Last thing this world needs is another fuckup trillionaire with massive childhood/mental issues and ego bigger than Everest who thinks he knows where humanity should go (to serve their wishes and needs). Or just milk mankind of anything good remaining like zuckenberg is doing.
I don't need to name further, we can all imagine our own elons on that place
the otherwise fawning praise in the comments for something that seems so obviously vibe-coded is making me wonder if all these one sentence replies are bots
One thing that's always bugged me about Georgism, or property taxes in general, is that you can't be self sufficient and it makes colonization mandatory.
There's still plenty of parts of the world where people live off the land, and under Georgism, those people would need to be taxed. Imagine arresting all of the inhabitants of North Sentinel Island, because they occupy land but don't pay taxes on it.
the sentinelese are sovereign, in my book. we could go do something which we call 'arresting them', i guess, but they would throw spears at us and chase us away, and then we would be at war.
i'm fine with people "living off the land", as long as they don't consume the services my taxes pay for.
colonization is obviously mandatory if we want more land. tax policy does not change that. nor does it make land more or less productive.
i do not support the use of force to seize assets. however, i believe that an overwhelming majority of people would -- upon reflection -- consciously and without duress agree to pay taxes in exchange for a working government.
- the demo on the page makes no sound and is visibly off (triggers happen when the token is at the wrong location, or not at all)
- the demo video is boring
- it doesn't even _do the thing_? it's just a 1d piano roll in a circle? there's no fun petri net dynamics?
you will spend much MUCH more time as a power law user than as a new user, such that almost any % gain in productivity once familiar is worth almost any months of unproductivity when new.
reply