Sometimes, doing something is worse than doing nothing at all.
> For that matter, using licensing to restrict government abuse obviously isn’t going to work, because licensing relies on state enforcement of rights anyway. If the state itself is compromised, having a clever little license isn’t the failsafe the OES thinks it is. It’s really just asking the police to arrest ICE with extra steps. This isn’t hypothetical, this is already codified in the law: even the international treaties that govern copyright have explicit exemptions for government action related to security interests. A license like this one can only ever possibly do harm.
> It is worse than ineffective; it is wrong too, because software developers should not exercise such power over what users do. Imagine selling pens with conditions about what you can write with them; that would be noisome, and we should not stand for it. Likewise for general software. If you make something that is generally useful, like a pen, people will use it to write all sorts of things, even horrible things such as orders to torture a dissident; but you must not have the power to control people's activities through their pens. It is the same for a text editor, compiler or kernel.
I'm reminded of AI hypesters complaining that people are constantly moving the goalposts of AI. It's a similar effect and I think both have a similar reason.
When people think of AI they think of robots that can think like us. That can solve arbitrary problems, plan for the future, logically reason, etc. In an autonomous fashion.
That's always been true. So the goal posts haven't really moved, instead it's a continuous cycle of hype, understanding, disappointment, and acceptance. Every time a computer exhibits a new capability that's human-like, like recognizing faces, we wonder if this is what the start of AGI looks like, and unfortunately that's not been the case so far.
I think you're spot in with this. It's the enthusiasts that are constantly trying to move the goalposts towards them and then the general public puts it back where it goes once they catch on.
AGI is what people think of when they hear AI. AI is a bastardized term that people use to either justify, hype and/or sell their research, business or products.
The reason "AI" stops being AI once it becomes mainstream is that people figure out that it's not AI once they see the limitations of whatever the latest iteration is.
I'm not concerned with who used what and when. I'm talking about what people expect of AI. When you tell people that you're trying to create digital intelligence, they'll inevitably compare it to people. That's the expectation.
The counter-argument is that even if you say democracy is sub-optimal, it’s certainly more stable than monarchy. Monarchy sounds good when you have a benevolent philosopher-king that does all the right things, but what if you get a bad king? That could mean decades of poor leadership.
With a monarchy, lighting has to strike over and over again.
Yet throughout history monarchies have been, by and large, more stable than democracies. There are well-attested dynasties that have lasted for many centuries -- the Zhou, Abbasid, and Rurikid dynasties were all in power for >700 years!
The Abbasid dynasty was at last conquered by the Ottomans -- themselves a >600-year dynasty.
Is there a democracy worthy of the name that has ever lasted >300 years?
"Certainly more stable than monarchy" -- nothing certain about it! History teaches just the opposite.
Sure, from time to time you get a bad emperor. Rome was lousy with bad emperors, towards the end. They tended to be "managed" by their handlers/Praetorians, and the empire marches on.
And Chinese history is basically like: Strong+cunning warrior leads a rebellion and establishes a dynasty, seizing the Mandate of Heaven. His heir, though still vigorous, is less strong and less cunning. His heir is weaker and duller still. By the 10th generation the emperor is a ne'er-do-well who does nothing but eat and write insipid poetry, and the empire is left to eunuchs and oligarchs who loot the populace. Rebellion ensues, a new warrior starts a new dynasty, and so it goes... This predictable cycle was stable for well over 1000 years.
I don't think that anybody seriously considers the republic of Rome a democracy.
Also Athenian and Venetian "democracy" were so wildly different from the current model that it's really not at all the same thing. Hewing more closely to the Athenian model could solve many of the world's problems, but today's oligarchical (at best!) "representatives," having attained power, will not willingly relinquish it.
In that case, you defeated your own argument because if you dismiss historical democracies (which I agree with) then you’re left with modern democracies which haven’t existed long enough to compare with monarachy in terms of resilience.
But I also fully acknowledge that invalidates my argument as well. However, I still think the stability of monarchies is overstated. Just because a dynasty lasts for 700 years doesn’t mean it was stable.
Uh, yeah, which is why "democracies are certainly more stable than monarchy" doesn't make any sense.
> modern democracies which haven’t existed long enough to compare with monarachy in terms of resilience.
lol, dude. Western democracy has been been on the wane for a long time now, and it's unironically just about over. The West is either going to continue down its path towards less democracy and plutocrat/oligarch/jurist rule with politics as bread and circuses (very bad, an intensification of what we have right now) -- or make a hard break towards more democracy and prole/populist mob rule (not necessarily a bad thing, unless you're a political extremist like, perhaps ironically, Yarvin himself.)
> Is there a democracy worthy of the name that has ever lasted >300 years?
I mean, democracy became popular less than 300 years ago, so probably not. That being said, if you squint then the UK is pushing 400 years of some form of democracy (modulo all the biased voting and the franchise only being given to rich people).
I agree with everything you say except the “can’t get much worse” part. I think it can get substantially worse, and death is the primary mechanism that prevents power from centralizing on individuals forever.
This is related to Marx’s concept of surplus value. That capitalism is based on most people being under-compensated for the full value of their labor so that someone else can be overcompensated for their labor.
Given that this website comes from a VC startup incubator I highly doubt it’s meant to refer to hacking security.
I think it’s meant to mean the “move fast and break things” style hacking. Which basically means churning out code fast and pushing through problems quickly instead of getting stuck on perfectionism.
I'm convinced there are a large number of people, mostly in tech, that are unknowingly in a death cult because they think complex human systems can be boiled down to simple metrics and logic. And they get attached to this libertarian-type thinking because it makes them feel smart and above it all.
Like the rest of us are over-complicating it, and human economic prosperity is as simple as blindly accelerating value creation.
What we’re really talking about is freedom. Freedom to do what you want with your time whether it’s relaxation or work, but on your own terms.
When you have to work for an income that is a type of forced work, and generally speaking forced work is not going to be as effective as work done of your own volition.
It’s intrinsic motivation vs extrinsic motivation. When I think about your point of view I see a lot of waste and misery. Instead of naively maximizing value production, I want to see a future of contentment and quality value production. Value produced because people are inspired to produce value, not because they have to.
This is one of the more rational comments. I’m really surprised there aren’t more comments expressing how insane this topic is.
It’s absolutely insane that technology and productivity are increasing so rapidly, yet we’re talking about raising the retirement age and people being increasingly unable to afford children.
People will always yearn and wonder and imagine. Sure some people will spend their time fishing but a lot of people need things to strive for a and they will make things up or seek out others who feel the same way.
I agree. Lots of evidence to suggest that this would allow humans to be the most human they could be. Calling it a new Renaissance is not a stretch. Nor reminding those that much of the scientific advancements in the past were made by those who had the luxury of enough free time to sit around and think. But I think too many confuse this message with suggesting some form of Communism or Socialism. I'm not advocating for that (personally, I'm strong believer in Capitalism, even if not the Laissez-faire kind. You can't control a wild horse, but neither should you let it freely destroy your farm). Those notions are related, but not the same thing. You can clearly, as demonstrated by rich elite and people retiring, have post scarce lives without the need for such direct control.
reply