sham1

> Controversial take: AI music is more interesting than the autotuned, quantized, mass-market-optimized slop that dominates contemporary pop "music".

You're right, this sure was a controversial take.

Anyway, surely this dichotomy only matters if your only choices are "AI generated music" and "autotuned, quantized, mass-market-optimized slop that dominates contemporary pop "music"". However, there is a bunch of good music outside of the "pop music" zone, which isn't AI generated, so why not go with some of that instead? Nobody is forcing you to listen to pop music.

As someone from one of those non-US democracies, the reason why we can mandate IDs for votes is because they're basically trivial to get, whereas from what I've heard of the American hodgepodge of state-level IDs and "this one counts while this one doesn't" shenanigans, that doesn't seem to apply to the US. Now, I know that over there, the several states are responsible for running the elections within their borders -- that being in the US Constitution -- but some states seem to try to (and succeed in) making it unnecessarily difficult, and that may or may not be on purpose. Civil Rights groups certainly seem to think that it is, and that it affects minority populations disproportionately, because of course it does.

For a point of comparison, here in Finland we require that a voter has a valid ID, that is an ID card, a driver's licence with a photo in it, or a passport. Now what if you _don't_ have one of those IDs? Easy, you go to the police station and get yourself a temporary ID, which is by law given free of charge. You do need to get a passport photo taken for that, but those can usually be done in about 10 minutes for around 10 Euros.

And of course there are other things outside of the ID issue which make the elections not rigged against minorities. Simple things like having the actual election day on a Sunday, the polling stations being usually in walking distance in cities -- people living in the countryside most likely have a car -- and that said polling stations tend to be in schools, shops, and other such places where people would be going anyway. Oh, and you usually also get polling stations popping up before the actual election day so that people may vote in advance, in said shops, schools, and similar assorted places.

---

The US could totally start doing ID mandates, but the problem is that in the US, their usage doesn't seem to be out of a genuine worry about election integrity or other similar concerns, but out of voter disenfranchisement, which again, hits minority populations disproportionately hard.

The Christian conservative movement seems to really have that sort of an outlook. I mean, last year there were some that called out a priest for "the sin of empathy" when she was preaching about taking care of the less fortunate and not laying immigrants to the wayside. Because as we all know, one of the things that Big J disliked was checks notes empathy!

And it's not exclusive to the US. For example here in Finland, this sort of Christian conservatism has a lot of support alongside our far-right government. The Bible being used as a justification for intolerance and hate, which does seem rather ironic considering what Big J was all about.

> Example: many believe the rich ought to be taxed more; but the problem is the Laffer curve: when they're taxed too much, they work less or leave France. So tax receipts go down (not up).

Has this literally ever happened, like anywhere? Yeah, the Laffer curve is a very real concern and a by-product of Rolle's theorem, but we don't even know where the supposed inflection point is, much less whether any given tax reform that would cause wealthy people to pay more would go over it.

> So the change harms the very people who are protesting for the change.

Human psychology is weird in that they might even be okay with this as long as the perceived fairness increases. But the only way to find out would be to do an experiment. That might also help us find the inflection point in the Laffer curve.

There has never been socialism in the EU.

The irony with these AI corpos is that they're okay with scraping all of human creative endeavours yet they get annoyed at others doing distillation on their models.

Compensating authors would be a moral thing to do, but morals aren't really a thing for corpos, so whatever. However the fact that they then turn around and get annoyed at other actors for scraping their stuff is very hilarious and shows how much they care about the social contract :)

While your point is valid enough -- although it could have been made without this kind of snarky and sarcastic snide -- it seems clear that global copyright legislation is a lot more beneficial to the wealthy capital owners rather than the artists that you were alluding towards. Now, this is no insurmountable obstacle at least in theory. The laws could be modified in a way that lets small artists etc focus on following their passions without starving, without allowing capital to do what is essentially the intellectual equivalent of enclosure of the Commons.

Of course, one thing needed for this is the political will as well as getting rid of the idea of defending exploitation by the billionaire class by conflating their needs with the needs of starving artists because one can technically argue that copyright helps both, despite everyone knowing that one party is benefiting a lot more from it than the other.

Solving the universe's mysteries is over thing, and if this really was about just the researchers' feelings then your perspective would be the valid one.

However, we live under capitalism. People also need to have their careers to be able to afford the goods and services to keep themselves alive. So unless AI causes a radical -- some might even call it revolutionary -- reconfiguration in the way our societies work, putting people out of work is just cruel and the gleeful commentary around that is just more salt in the wound.

Are you ready to fight for the AI to seize the means of production for the betterment of all humanity or at the very least enable us to have proper universal basic income? Because just disrupting every industry to make humans obsolete without a plan will just result in that happening anyway, just with more misery and conflict.

The Purge was a terrible movie in so many ways but its message is still extremely resonant. It's also about as subtle as a brick wall, yet I'm afraid that it might have been still a tad too subtle.

Maybe I am, but I'd argue that in that case I'm depicting literally all professions as rent-seeking, as people really want to protect their income and livelihoods from infringement that would endanger them. And at that point it's probably not useful to talk about it as rent-seeking.

If AI can do literally any job more efficiently than a human, then there's no need for human labour anymore and at least to me that seems that unless we get a radical transformation of our political economy, that will not be allowed to happen. You can't just put literally everyone out of a job, capitalism just wouldn't be able to cope with it and it'd implode, most probably because of the inevitable backlash that would occur for to no one being able to afford the basic necessities of life. It would be orders of magnitude bigger than either the French or Russian revolutions.

I'm no mathematician, but if being concerned about being able to keep my employment to be able to feed myself makes me a rent-seeker, then I will wear that on my sleeve proudly, crossing my heart, hoping to die. The misery of the alternative is too great to fathom.

Didn't you literally say

> Gatekeeping is when a group tries to prevent others from participating in a field or activity.

And I gave a way in which charging a price does that.

I am open to the idea of being incorrect in this case, in which I apologise for misunderstanding, and concede that I'm missing the nuance but in my defence, I'm not a native speaker.

You'd be ecstatic until you realise "oh damn, how will I get enough money to eat?"

Sure, there are probably some mathematicians that are sad that robots can do all the proofs and such for them, but it seems to me that most of them probably would be happy with the robots helping to solve problems if not for the little issues that mathematics is their profession and in the current state of things, they need to eat and have a place to live.

And that is the actual problem. Let's just remember, the Luddites were not anti-technology, they were against the technology being owned by a small elite that could use it to take away their livelihoods. They were against the capitalists essentially throwing them into the ditch to starve, and we're seeing echoes of that in the current AI discussion and the reactions of mathematicians, programmers, artists, etc. Back in the 1800s it was physical and artisan manufacturing labour in danger, and now it's mental labour.

Selling a book quite literally is gatekeeping, since the idea is that you're prevented from engaging with the work without paying for it. Even with libraries it was society who paid for it in order for the commons to get access, but payment was nevertheless needed.

It just turns out that the Chesterton's gate is useful and people tend to think that people should be paid for their labour, since people kinda need a roof over their heads and food on their table.

And this is why we must ensure that the AIs get aligned towards humanity and crucially that they don't get aligned towards capital, which seems to be the current trajectory.

There's a better chance that a humanity-aligned AI would make sure that humans have something to do and keep us alive versus a capital-aligned one. At the same time, if AI would be the deathblow to capitalism, that'd be very, _very_ ironic.

Eh, that analogy doesn't really work. It'd be more like claiming that you built a PC when you bought a pre-built one.

Because making things everywhere compliant is cheaper than having both a non-EU and EU versions of software. See also: Brussels effect[0].

It's simple economics. The companies are also allowed to either do special versions to comply with local laws or even to pull out of the market. They just choose not to for reasons.

[0]: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect>

Ukrainian special ops. And good riddance, that pipeline was a stain on the Baltic, and people like Paavo Lipponen should be ashamed for ever pushing for it.

They won't be, though.

From a user's perspective probably nothing, but from Google's perspective, the benefit is more control. Hell, Google is working on closing down sideloading, so this'll probably benefit them.

> > International relations is only literally anarchy if you take the realist school of thought as representing IR. > > It's literally the state of things: "there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics. In international relations, anarchy is widely accepted as the starting point for international relations theory." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_(international_relatio...). > > If you know of such an authority, please point it out. The UN is not it.

That is indeed true that the Cold War politicking reduced the UN to its current role from what it was originally meant for. UNGC resolutions of course were meant to be more comprehensive and more binding, with the UNSC being used to enforce the resolutions. Which is of course why the Four Policemen + France insisted upon veto power as a prerequisite of them joining the club.

RE: there not being any coercive power that can enforce laws and such, that is of course true in the sense that there is no universal power for that. However, institutions with such power do exist, at least in a smaller scale.

Let's for example take the EU and its relation to Orbán's Hungary. The European Union was explicitly removing Hungary's access to EU funds as a coercive measure to punish Hungary for its democratic backsliding and as a way to enforce its membership terms, that Hungary had agreed to when ascending to the bloc. And that's why reforms (and promises of reforms) by the still fairly recent government of Magyar Péter are a prerequisite for Hungary to get access to the funds that got frozen.

Also, NATO exists, which can also be used as an avenue for resolving disputes between its member states. See also the 1974 Cyprus coup d'état, the subsequent Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the collapse of the Greek junta afterwards. The Organization of American States was used as a vehicle for resolving the Football War between Honduras and El Salvador with political and economic pressure, etc. And for a more historical example, both the Comecon and the Warsaw Pact had major Soviet coercion, although to be fair, other member states did also have some breathing room as long as they didn't step out of line too much.

---

Also, your own Wikipedia link also says that not all IR theory takes anarchy between states as a given, mainly in that the liberal doctrine doesn't assume such, unlike for example realism, which I alluded to.

International relations is only literally anarchy if you take the realist school of thought as representing IR.

Does translating Quake to Rust with an LLM count as any sort of project, let alone a side project?

Teaching Assistant. Fairly common jargon in academia, but yeah, the GP should have macroexpanded that.

Firstly I'd point out that the difference here is that all of those things you mentioned are things you could learn and the distinction would be that at least currently the proofs provided by AI are inscrutable. Although this will probably change.

The second thing is to just ask what is there left to do. What are these "greater things" that people can dedicate time to, when clearly even classically cerebral activities like mathematics can be automated away. The industrial revolution already wrecked physical production of goods and made artisan workers obsolete outside of extremely niche scenarios -- that's why we call things artisanal, after all -- but there was still mental work. But now, mental work is also experiencing the same thing, and it's not clear what one should do as a human anymore.

And some people seem outright gleeful about these developments, which can be seen even in this thread. What happens when humanity becomes obsolete? And what happens when the machines that cause this obsolescence are controlled by a tiny amount of people, who suddenly don't need the rest of us? I can only hope that this turns out well for us and that with the development of these machines, humanity will get better, but the omnipresent existential dread is giving me doubts.

It's honestly both very funny as well as very sad that one of the most unbelievable aspects of that is them taxing the AI pornography industry. Given that being a Rick&Morty spinoff means that Prez Curtis has plenty of outlandish aspects to it already, yet suspending one's disbelief about an industry actually getting taxed kinda goes over the limit.

Sheep are also cute and fluffy, so people wouldn't suspect a thing until it's too late!

I guess the real question then is why were you programming since the 90s instead of getting yourself into a managerial position. After all, that's basically what you have to do with vibe coding; you tell the agents what they should do and specify requirements etc.

Then again, have you ever asked a golden retriever about CMake errors? Rubber ducking is a real thing, after all. Besides, a golden retriever would be a good morale boost if nothing else.

No, that's not it. Instead it's the right-wing "geniuses" running the government that have been a major cause of this. The NCP and Finns Party keep making a mess of things in the name of their ideology.

This concern carries within it the assumption that having LLMs gives the parties as much influence as what nuclear weapons do in warfare. An assumption that should probably be checked.

An individual pirate is morally a lot less objectionable than the capitalist class pirating from literally everyone else.

Yeah sure, it's on the open Internet, but then again, the capitalists could also actually adhere to the licensing terms of the free software they're hoovering up and all that. These are the same people who want to enforce all kinds of EULAs against the commons, employing measures such as DRM to protect their "intellectual property", so why is it suddenly okay to not comply with IP when it's them doing the infringement?

And that's just with software, but this also affects other creative endeavours. Also the individual HN user's 132 TB Plex server doesn't suck up ludicrous amounts of resources from the commons.