baron816
baron816 on Hacker News
> Obviously teaching drillers to be astronauts is the better movie though
Astronauts, drillers, AI researchers, drug developers...Ben Affleck and Bruce Willis can do it all!
I think you’re right and I think the leaders of the AI labs know they’re never going to have profits. Money will become meaningless before then. But they need money now to actually make the future where money is meaningless. So I think they’re deceiving everyone to get capital. I don’t think that’s a bad thing though so I haven’t been trying to push this message.
It's a really tough, unsolved economic problem.
Just having government run it doesn't solve all the issues, and often adds in opportunities for corruption.
Utilities have to balance investment in infrastructure. We have good reason to move away from carbon heavy sources of electricity, but investing in those new sources and the transmission capacity doesn't just happen for free.
We also need to consider delivering electricity to rural areas, which is usually quite expensive. San Francisco is considering taking over the local utility from PG&E. That might save money for local ratepayers, but would almost certainly make things more expensive for other people in the state who were effectively being subsidized by SF.
Figuring out how to do these things efficiently and balancing multiple goals is not something governments have a great track record of. I think there's a lot of opportunity to construct better market structures to incentivize investment and competition AND keep rates low.
The smart thing to do would be to raise taxes (not just on the wealthy) and cut entitlements. Reducing the deficit would indeed slow down inflation, give the Fed room to cut interest rates, and boost business investment. The economy would be in a much healthier place.
Really doubt that demo was on a 10k kg car. It was probably stripped down to practically a shell for that trick.
There is an incentive: if people know your platform is riddled with scammers, they’re not going to use it. There are hundreds of dating apps out there that people just don’t use because they’re not trustworthy.
I would 100% buy one of these if it were $200 or maybe even $250. $300 is outrageous.
I think governments should work on making their citizens more dateable.
Schools should try to teach kids better social skills as well as how to cultivate a healthy romantic relationship. You might say society and culture should be the ones doing this, and you’d be right, but they’ve failed at that.
Kids need to know how to make introductions (not just introduce themselves but introduce other people), how to show someone you’re interested in them, how to engage in small talk with a stranger and escalate it to deeper and more meaningful conversation, and even when and how to kiss someone. There used to be schools for elites to teach some of these things. It’s time to bring them back but for everyone.
There are countries where the entire government is the pocket of the largest corporations. The US is not one of those countries. It can get much worse if you allow it.
As they say, if you owe a million dollars to the bank, the bank owns you. But if you owe a billion dollars to the bank, you own the bank.
When an institution becomes financially dependent on something for its revenues, that something gains a lot of power over the institution.
That’s still providing an implicit subsidy to listed corporations
I think what we’ve found with the current administration is that people will use every last surface for corruption and power that they can. The more you opportunities you give the government to be corrupt, the more corrupt they’re going to be.
Summary of why sovereign wealth funds are generally a bad idea: the governments don’t like to do things that could potentially harm their investments. If a government has large stakes in cigarette companies, they’re going to be resistant to regulate them.
There’s also plenty of opportunity for corruption. But even with safeguards, there’s going to be opportunities to steer investment towards favored companies and industries and away from those that oppose the administration or otherwise do things the administration doesn’t like (think of efforts to divest from Israel or fossil fuel companies).
“Just invest in the S&P”. Something like this would give substantial power to the index makers. But it also gives preference to already huge companies. Small, unlisted companies would be indirectly penalized by having to compete against companies with government funding.
Just wear a light colored linen suit without a tie. You’ll look great
Those places aren’t isolated though. Many of their residents (and especially their children) have left and found opportunities in other parts of the country.
Economists tend to prefer policies that help people, not places. Gary, Indiana just doesn’t have any geographical advantages that make it competitive.
I think, if anything, the mistake was to allow people in those places to believe there would be an eventual turnaround by trying to prop up uncompetitive manufacturing industries.
They don’t because they hire people to pick it up
Anyone reading this who works/runs a robotics company, I really want to encourage you to build a robot to pick up trash on city sidewalks as an early product.
Picking up trash requires a lot of dexterity and will come with many challenges, but I think it’s a simpler problem than many household tasks and it’s probably on par for what these tests show is doable.
I think you’re going to have to PR challenges getting people to welcome robots into their homes. If you have robots out in cities providing a public good, not only do they serve as walking advertisements for your company, you’re going to earn some trust before you’re ready deploy them into private spaces.
Plus, governments (or perhaps HOAs for wealthy communities) can be good early customers since you can have a focused sales strategy. Politicians love these types of visible quality of life improvement projects. If you can show that your robots, working round the clock, can decrease litter at a low cost, many cities are going to want to buy them.
Alphabet hasn’t had any layoffs, tightening of salaries and perks, or impacts to work life balance. Morale is quite good, imo as an employee
People have this right to take better jobs at other companies. This is how we get better working conditions: competition between employers. Tech has figured this out. I’ve never felt the need to go on strike.
Unions can be a deterrent to this. If you have sectoral bargaining, you can’t get a better deal anywhere because everyone pays the same. Or even if it’s within a single company, you’re just stuck with whatever scheme the union bosses agreed to.
But also, unions are a deterrent to new employers since fewer people want to start companies in industries where unions have taken over. They’re a nightmare to deal with. Fewer employers means less competition means worse services.
We have a dynamic economy with lots of competition. It’s easy to switch jobs and find a better place to work. We should not want to give this up.
Why do you assume unions are always reasonable? Unions in the US have a long history of over reaching and crippling industries and governments.
Where do I say that nurses shouldn’t have good working conditions or good pay? Most of us have figured this out already: you can take a job at another company that’s better to work for. Most nurses do have pretty good working conditions and get paid well. Competition among employers is the solution here. Walking out and putting customers (or patients in this case) in a precarious position is not.
Have you ever not been able to send your kids to school for weeks (or years in the case of COVID) because the teachers refused to work? Have you ever been unable to get timely medical treatment because nurses refused to work? Have you ever been unable to work yourself because the transit workers refused to work?
The labor market is just kind of complicated. Having a four year span where your real income goes down because you didn’t job hop isn’t ideal, but it’s totally possible that it pays off in the long run quite handsomely.
Ideally, you want to have a dynamic economy where people have very many paths to prosperity. In the US, you have people like Ted Sarandos who managed video rental stores for 17 years before taking a job at Netflix, which eventually led him to become CEO. Or you have Doug McMillion, who started at Walmart in 1984 unloading trailers at a distribution center and rose up to the CEO position. And you have Dara Khosrowshahi, the Uber CEO, who started his career in investment banking, became a media executive, and then served as Expedia CEO. An of course, there any plenty of extremely successful entrepreneurs who never worked for anyone else before founding their own company.
Rupert Murdoch absolutely is capable of doing all that. He’s absolutely done far more harm globally than Zuckerberg.
This take only makes sense if you don’t know what people use Google search for. If you’re looking for your local Ford dealership, or to book a Carnival cruise, or need a disability lawyer, or to refinance your credit card debt, you’re searching for an ad. You’re not using Chat-GPT for that. You’re asking Chat-GPT about a research project. It’s stealing away all the hard to monetize searches and leaving the incredibly lucrative searches.
Your narrative depressed Google’s stock price for years, and bears finally gave up since they kept coming out with huge earnings beats.
Sneaker manufacturing is a very manual process. Nike famously tried to automate it and failed (
https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/why-its-so-difficult-for-r...). Designing and constantly changing all the processes is more expensive than just having people do it by hand. If you can have AI design the process, then the equation switches.
IMO, the area where AI is going to be most useful over the next couple years is in developing manufacturing processes top to bottom. Maybe a million token budget is too small, but something like "design me a sneaker and all the equipment to manufacture it autonomously".
He knows he brought these attacks with his war, but he doesn’t take the blame for anything.
I hope humanoids will be ever present, it’s just that the scale of impact from specialized robots will be far greater. Humanoids will be our butlers, but the other robots will be creating a world of unimaginable abundance.