- 0 Posts
- 56 Comments
1·2 days agoI mean companies can force him out by themselves if they’re pressured enough. Also all companies make unsuccessful business bets. What matters is that from a neutral third person point of view, these companies aren’t doing anything that they’re not supposed to be doing. They’re putting sectors of the American economy in danger of collapse, they’re not committing crimes left and right, and their services are satisfactory for most people.
It’s a very real thing. So much so that OpenAI actually came out and publicly complained about how it’s apparently costing the company millions.
You’re definitely correct that most people are ignorant on these models work. I think most people understand these models aren’t sentient, but even among those who do, they don’t become emotionally attached to these models. I’m just saying that the people who end up developing feelings for chatbots go beyond ignorance. They have issues that require years of therapy.
Please do. I would very much not see a clown on my feed who accuses others of things they don’t even understand.
Are you sure you’re not on drugs? Because this is quite the unhinged rant
Good call, I can’t in good conscience allow my kids to date robots that give them 30 second unskippable ads
My point is that those people are a very small minority, and they suffer from issues that go beyond their ignorance of these how these models work.
I like how every generation has the same issue just rebranded:
Should inter tribal marriage be a thing?
Should be people from different classes be able to marry?
Should people from different religious sects be able to marry?
Should people from different religions be able to marry?
Should interracial marriage be a thing?
Should people of the same sex be able to marry?
And soon, we’re about to have
Should people be able to marry robots?
The world is inherently unequal and unfair. We’re all born in different bodies with varying abilities and in different circumstances. The world we’re born into is one with scarce resources that cannot ever match our infinite desires. What this means is that there is no end state to social progress. There will always be inequality in the world. A world without inequality is a utopia, and utopias will never exist because they’re just fantasies.
But perhaps that’s not a bad thing. One of the hallmarks that define civilization is inequality. Inequality creates hierarchies, and hierarchies create order. It is through this order that we have been able to organize and mobilize to build the world we live in today. It is because people aren’t entirely equal that we have different people specializing in different things to give us our complex modern economies.
In a way, inequality could be seen as a law of nature just like death. It will be something that we can never defeat, but it will always be an issue that we try to solve, or at least avoid making worse. Our disdain for inequality could be an evolutionary trait that helps keeps our primate societies healthier and stronger. If this is the case then inequality is a never ending problem, and social progress will never cease to be. Sometime it’ll advance, sometimes it’ll regress, but the issue will never be resolved.
If you were to go a time machine and travel another 1000 years into the future. You won’t be stepping into a utopia, instead, you’ll be stepping into a much more complex and advanced society that will still be facing the same types of challenges we face now. These are also the same challenges that we have faced for thousands of years, throughout all of human history. Perhaps this struggle is just a part of human nature.
I think most people understand that these LLM cannot think or reason, they’re just really good tools that can analyze data, recognize patterns, and generate relevant responses based on parameters and context. The people who treat LLM chatbot like they’re people have much deeper issues than just ignorance.
I don’t like Elon, fuck him. My point is that what you’re asking for is setting a precedent we never had. We’ve always had complimentary system between the private and public sectors, most countries are like this as well. Nationalizing companies without a genuine justification is going to cause shock waves throughout the economy. Why would investors spend capital in the country if the government can snatch up their business the moment they’re deemed important? If that’s the only thing needed to nationalize companies, what’s stopping idiots in government like Trump from just weaponizing it by nationalizing any company that competes with his own businesses, political opponents, or his crony friends? Not to mention, where is confidence that our incompetent government is going to manage these companies better than they can manage themselves? These are all really big questions.
There’s a reason why nationalization is left as a temporary last resort measure to rescue economic sectors from collapse. You could make an argument that this would apply for a publicly traded company like Boeing that’s quickly heading towards collapse. Considering how they’re only commercial plane manufacturer, that means they’re our entire industry. The company’s stability is a matter of national security. But SpaceX? None of this applies.
SpaceX is a private business that’s stable, reliable, and competitive. They’re doing exactly what they’re supposed to. It’s easy to say that we should just nationalize companies without thinking about the consequences. I’m in favor of things like universal healthcare, public transit systems, and more power to our research agencies. But these things have to come to fruition through stronger regulations and government alternatives, not nationalization. If there are cases where a company has to be nationalized and there are no alternatives, then they should be bought out.
I don’t think what I’m saying is controversial.
A strawman is when somebody mischaracterize an argument, calling someone a tankie is not that.
This is a very valid point. Nationalization essentially means transferring control of these companies to either Trump or congress as well giving them power to use nationalization as a tool. Not only are they horrendously incompetent but they’re also sure to weaponize it. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump went on a spree nationalizing “liberal Democrat” companies or nationalizing companies that compete with his businesses.
I’m not smarter than everyone, but you are dumb enough to think Marxism and Fascism are economic opposites otherwise you wouldn’t have said what you did earlier.
Yes, that’s why no one in this entire thread suggested anything even remotely close to this. it’s stupid, and a stupid strawman.
The guy that I replied said that we should nationalize any company that receives tax dollars if we depend on it… Buts that case for virtually the entire economy. Everything is touch by our tax dollars and everything in our economy is intertwined. It is a ridiculous suggestion.
Nationalizing spaceX temporarily in order to restore confidence in it’s largest, most important customer, after that customer’s trust has been repeatedly violated by the executive and the board that keeps him in power, is NOT NATIONALIZING THE ENTIRE ECONOMY nor would it be untoward if Boeing or Lockheed’s CEO was dumb enough to engage in this bullshit.
The government doesn’t nationalize on the behalf of companies, it only temporarily nationalizes when to protect the American economy at large. For example, in 2008 the government took hold of a bunch of auto companies to prevent a collapse of this sector. This is not happening here for SpaceX so it doesn’t make sense to do it.
The thing is you would actually have a really good case to temporarily nationalize Boeing because it is basically our entire commercial plane manufacturing sector, and it’s quickly heading towards collapse. This is a case where it makes sense. Starlink and SpaceX don’t fall under this umbrella.
Nationalizing companies is not going to fix the accountability issue we have in the country. The same problems are going to happen, just under new management.
My point is that this can be and is often done without nationalizing entire sectors of the economy
It seems like you don’t know what that term means
It is my firm opinion that all people are inherently stupid. We’re just apes that evolved to live in simple ape societies, but we somehow ended up living in insanely complex societies that are all interconnected with each other. It’s just too much for our ape brains to keep up with everything.