This isn't lying about product philosophy, lying about your financial stake in an OpenAI VC group would be grounds for dismissal from any company.

Yes for normies/mids.

I guess you also think Self-Driving Cars should come to full stop at STOP signs

At this point I assume this is a troll comment, as nobody could hold views THAT extreme and be THAT snidey in real life (I assume/hope :O )

If you a rule follower that follows rules just for the sake of following rules, you wouldn't understand.

But, if you think in first principles, humans need to stop because we have only two eyes that can look at only one direction and can never simultaneously compute what speed the other cars are traveling. Of course we have to stop and give enough buffer for 0% accident probability.

A FSD vehicle will have 8+ cameras looking around and already have computed where all the vehicles will be and has faster reaction time. So, it can be afforded higher buffer and lenient rules that was designed for humans.

But, people like yourself are hell bent on following rules for rules-following-sake instead of thinking in first principles. So, an FSD builder would have to lie to you to say "It'll follow traffic rules" because you have that framework.

If another first-principle-thinker asks the FSD builder, then they won't lie and will correctly say "Hey it will stop only when it is required and will break some traffic rules which doesn't make sense for a machine".

But you think it's just a Billionaire club. But it is really about having same principles.

Hope that clarifies.

Oh, you are coming through crystal clear, thank you :-)

It should determine your adherence to traffic laws based on your social score. Musk, Thiel, Altman, Andreessen? Do whatever the hell you want, laws don't apply to you. /s

Had to look up the jargon :

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/what-is-a-decel-dueling...

> “Decel” is used as a dismissive term for tech doomsayers by those who see themselves as members of the burgeoning E/Acc community. [... Who have] the belief that in our current technological age, the powers of innovation and capitalism should be exploited to their extremes to drive radical social change - even at the cost of today’s social order.

I'm sure that--in practice--there will be extremely strong correlation to social-order changes that leave the C-suite richer than before. :p

This is the literal definition of a slippery slope. Letting billionaires, who already wield extreme power, break laws and skirt regulations is the opposite of a free market.

Where do you get this idea that we have a free market? Money begets money, and as the commenter above pointed out, those who have money know how to make it and know that it's the Musk/Zuck/Altmans of the world who get it done.

We don't necessarily have to like it to acknowledge it's very much reality.

The "free market" literally means free of government interference and regulation...

So it actually implies allowing capitalists to wield extreme power, skirt laws and regulations.

I understand the term has gone through some kind of whitewashing to mean "this is the good system (unlike the bad system)", so one might be inclined to think it means something more equitable, but seriously, that was the original meaning.