Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | someothherguyy's commentslogin

its what all LLM users have all been doing, profiting off others' IP through a number cruncher, while relinquishing their own

> Putting one of those participant’s phone numbers into WhatsApp reveals a profile picture of a law enforcement patch. A pawn with wings sits in the center, surrounded by lightning bolts. The patch reads, “Laredo Sector Tech Ops PITT,” indicating there is also a Predictive Intelligence Targeting Team in the Laredo Sector.

https://www.aviatorgear.com/p-52057-laredo-sector-tech-ops-p...


https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2120481119

there is some very depressing research on this topic


[flagged]


> it is shocking to see that you have not even read the paper and you are just presenting it directly

what the fuck do you know about what i have read?

i was responding to a statement from the article. the link i shared is to an article that i read. it is cited some 600 times by similar articles.

i don't have the time to analyze every thing that the president or his administration posts. i don't know the realness of the AI faces he posts. if you have a resource that summarizes this, feel free to share.

maybe try to add to a discussion instead of ridiculing those participating in it with anecdotes and accusations.


> Much like freedom of speech means someone can speak abhorrently, freedom of enterprise means someone can do bad or dumb business things.

No?


> Would've been a lot more interesting of they promoted a population map

why?


Watch the map animation at the top of the NPR article.

Notice how most of 'em don't even bother to show the deep interior of Antarctica.

If you aren't a geologist or similar - how much of the importance of a place is due to the people living there?


The UN represents the interests of people, not land.

so? people still need to use and visualize a map that isn't some strange abstraction. how useful is a population map when attempting to locate a small country to understand geography?

cheater detection and self-correction is important in systems. i am not sure "fucked-up" is a meaningful way to look at species-level things.

Even looking only at different cultures, saying nothing of nature, the degree to which people are willing to cooperate or defect against the group varies widely. The level of trust varies widely.

People aren't motivated solely by the risk of being caught. Some people tell themselves that everyone else must be trying to cheat, so it's okay for them to cheat. But this type of thinking isn't a law of nature, it's just a human flaw.

The amount of cheating is not a fundamental constant. Given that people are social animals and that we tend to be stronger as a group, in fact you'd expect that prosocial behavior is good for the species. If fucked up is to mean anything, poisoning the environment with forever chemicals ought to make the fucking cut, if you'll pardon my French.



As the saying goes, the optimal amount of cheating is not zero.

I'm saying it's variable, not that cheating can disappear completely.

In other words, utopia is fictional, but that doesn't mean the real world couldn't be better.


Yes, and our cheater detection is entirely broken, given that we prefer to give power to cheaters, as long as the cheater is smart enough.

yeah, sometimes cheaters winning is a net benefit or at least acceptable. although, i don't think those cases above are, heh.

It's just a bunch of grapes.

If there's more than enough grapes for everyone and one person takes more than their fair share, then, on the whole, it's fine. There's enough to go round.

If everyone tries to take more than their fair share, then the whole system falls apart.

When there are this many people, and this much visibility of the hustle, just seeing others prosper by cheating means a not insubstantial number of people will be in the "well I want grapes, and likely need to cheat to make sure I get my fair share" camp.


there is deeper thought on this topic beyond douglas hofstadter (~20 years ago for strange loop and prior for GEB) and scott aaronson

any cognitive science textbook will bring some thoughts, or a cursory google scholar search


everyone should do this, but it is difficult. imo, it is better to talk with your parents beforehand (if possible) to understand what they want to share with you and what they do not.

99% of people don't know or don't care or don't decide to deal with it until they are past being able to deal with it. It's difficult.

I've seen tears shed because a wife couldn't get into her dead husband's iPhone to get the photos off from their final holiday together.

Technology is HORRIBLE in this space socially speaking.


not sure if i got this right, but it sounds like you experienced some things and you want to share something, but you are telling others how to live instead.

I agree not to use corporate level stuff for private life. Yourself will forget how to troubleshoot it after 5 years, family will have no idea what to do with it. External encrypted/unencrypted USB drive is really sufficient.

It's more a tale of woe to remind everyone that your technology choices may affect yourself and others in ways that you don't think about up front.

Take what you want from it. Discard what you don't.


i am more of the position of most human generated information should be ephemeral. for instance, i wish this site would let individuals have that need met, alas.

no information is so important to violate others' right to their own property.

so i contribute as little as possible, in the name of "community", per the guidelines.


That information I'm talking about is mostly photos of me and my kids. They might want those. They can choose.

yeah, i mean, that might be meaningful, or not. i have thousands of pictures of my grandparents, great grandparents, etc that none of their kids (or many grandkids, great grandkids, etc) wanted.

seems like, eventually (mostly) no one cares


Yes exactly. I have 2 photos of my grandmother and about an A4 page of text. That's about all I expect to remain of me in 100 years.

a lot of these studies with technology, etc, are concerned with outcomes in primary/secondary(high) school, which, tbf, no one gives a fuck about, as life outcomes are what matters

a great harm in human society is overconfident extrapolation, especially when treating humans as analogous to weather elements

however, there is literature that explores this aspect, but not relative to what we know right now (and if it is a global trait, does it matter at the general population level?)


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: