What a wonderful surprise! I had been thinking about a solution like this in the last year. I am curious what led everyone to this software? Is everyone else wary of the main commercial providers, privacy issues, getting locked out of your Apple/Google account, etc?
This being HN, I expect most people on here are American and view social topics from an American perspective. Swiss have a level of trust in their governments that Americans could never even dream of. The pros and cons of this debate are not necessarily about whether the current government or a near future one will abuse it. But I feel that Americans on here (as well as folks living in countries with low government trust) are projecting their low trust views onto other countries and thus concluding that the current swiss government or a near future one cannot be trusted with this power.
Swiss here, and I do not agree. We used to be able to trust our government, but more and more, as the years go by, tech-savvy people realize how laws have accumulated into surveillance.
Now there are much worse cases out there, sure. But most Swiss citizens are not even aware of those laws.
Nor are they aware of how much the Swiss government has been trying to hide its incompetence regarding anything IT-related. Like data leaks happening several times per year.
So yes, a big percentage of those almost 50% of "no we don't want this" responses were about lack of trust in the different branches of the government.
But the first time it was due to be handled privately and this time by the state. And that was one of the main arguments against it at the time. So I don't think the GP is that far from the truth.
Point being that government can't just mandate and create anything and people will love it. If it was purely private, why did we vote on it. It took a lot of discussion and many iteration and it barley passed in the end.
Which needs to follow a mandate of properly handling user data (Switzerland has a law that's very close to GDPR) and properly respecting privacy as written in the proposal.
Not doing so is something the citizens can sue the government for - as opposed to US "private company can collect whatever, whenever and do whatever" (see credit ratings).
There are many lessons to be learned from history. One of them is that you should never trust your government to not abuse its power. Even the most progressive welfare states like Sweden end up doing horrible things (see how Sweden sterilized thousands based on eugenics policies (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319507778_Eugenics_...).
If you want some recent examples for Switzerland (beyond the dozens upon dozens the further you go back in History) look up, Verdingkinder, Swiss eugenics after 1945, Holocaust Assets (Volcker Commission Report), Post-War Forced Labor and Slaver Switzerland, Secret Police and Surveillance (Swiss Federal Parliamentary Report of 1990), etc, etc.
Some level of trust is required for a functioning society, but there are so many natural factors (human psychology, evolution, national security, crisis situations, elite capture, economic incentives, legitimizing narratives, etc.) which all lead to the abuse of power and the violation thereof that IMHO you can never limit and check it too much.
The government power abuse is the only one that can be stopped by citizens at large. Making it significantly different from corporate power abuse, where there's no law or mechanism reeling them in.
Without governmental systems, these ID approaches tend to end up in private corporate hands instead.
interesting. I agree that governmental power should be stoppable in a functioning democratic republic. At least, we have some such examples. However, I would think, at least in the examples that come to my mind, it is far easier to end corporate abuse, although I will admit often the two are tightly intertwined with governmental overreach working hand-in-hand with private corporations so its quite commonly a blurred line.
Productivity boost ain't free though. Once the transformer tech stops being subsidised and you have to pay for it, we will see if the productivity gains are worth the subscription cost
Don't you just mean social activities? You don't need to accept metaphysical dogmas or engage in scheduled physical combat with other people to socialize.
Well, just speaking for myself, socialization is the least of the benefits of the structure I follow. That socialization is also incredibly deep. It's not your usual Kiwanis Club.
I have learned that addicts (and alcoholics are just alcohol addicts), need a lot more than just "socialization."
Most folks have no idea how to address true addiction.
Well, they have "ideas," but very few are at all effective.
> "The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake."
> "There's always an easy solution to every human problem; Neat, plausible and wrong."
- H. L. Mencken
I certainly don't claim to have all the answers, but I know one that works for me, and I have seen a lot of people fail; often, spectacularly. It really is one of those "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand." things.
You mentioned church, so I assume you mean rituals or activities based on the religion of Christianity, what exactly is deep about those rituals or activities? You also mention true addiction, do you mean physical addiction (as opposed to psychological)? Also, regarding what addicts need, are you not just extrapolating based on your experience? It is certainly possible that what worked for you won't work on everyone else
Eh, I think we’re reaching that wall, where folks have their minds made up, and won’t accept conflicting information. There’s a ton of that, in addiction treatment.
> You also mention true addiction, do you mean physical addiction (as opposed to psychological)?
True addiction has nothing to do with physical dependence. That’s actually a by-product of addiction. It’s entirely possible to be an addict, without ever becoming physically dependent, and also, you can become physically dependent, without becoming an addict. That happens frequently, in pain management.
But a lot of folks have their minds already set in stone, here. Lots of moralizing and theories get tossed around, while addicts die, and destroy the lives of others.
I’m not going to try explaining it here. I’ve been at this, longer than many folks have been alive, and am quite aware of the futility of trying to graft new ideas onto closed minds. I’m really too busy, helping folks out, that want it.
> It is certainly possible that what worked for you won't work on everyone else
Absolutely, but it has worked for millions, so it does have some effectiveness.
>AI is a powerful tool for those who are willing to put in the work.
Can we please call this technology transformers? Calling it AI makes it seem something more than it is (ie 2100 tech or something like that). Yes, transformers are great but it would be naive to ignore that much of the activity and dreams sold have no connection with reality and many of those dreams are being sold by the very people that make the transformers (looking at you, OpenAI)
> I've noticed this as well. It's a huge boon for startups, because it means that a lot of functions that you would previously need to hire specialists for (logo design! graphic design! programming! copywriting!) can now be brought in-house, where the founder just does a "good enough" job using AI.
You are missing the other side of the story. All those customers, those AI boosted startups want to attract also have access to AI and so, rather than engage the services of those startups, they will find that AI does a good enough job. So those startups lost most of their customers, incoming layoffs :)
Then there's the 3rd leg of the triangle. If a startup built with AI does end up going past the rest of the pack, they will have no technical moat since the AI provider or someone else can just use the same AI to build it.
I mean, if taxi companies could build their own Uber in house I’m sure they’d love to and at least take some customers from Uber itself.
A lot of startups are middlemen with snazzy UIs. Middlemen won’t be in as much use in a post AI world, same as devs won’t be as needed (devs are middlemen to working software) or artists (middlemen to art assets)
That's why you use Uber because the app has more depth and is more polished?
Most people use it for price, ability to get driver quickly, some for safety and many because of brand.
Having a functioning app with an easy interface helps onboard and funnel people but it's not a moat just an on ram like a phone number many taxis have.
Funny thing with people suddenly pretending we just got AI with LLMs. Arguably, AIs has been around for way longer, it just wasn't chatty. I think when people talking about AI, they are either talking about LLMs specifically or transformers. Both seem like a very reductive view of the AI field even if transformers are hottest thing around.
> This isn’t a controversial result in the literature, it’s more evidence for what we already know —- air pollution is very bad.
It is certainly controversial for individuals whose way of life (see non-electric car-centric society) is being questioned by this science. Just look at some of the cynic answers in this thread pretending that air pollution is not bad
Just because air pollution is bad, doesn’t mean it is bad in this way. It could just as easily be that some other lifestyle thing is causing dementia AND leading to living in areas with worse pm2.5.
Especially since pm2.5 tends to be higher in areas with higher population densities, near roads, industrial areas, etc.
Hell, maybe the underlying major risk factor is actually time spent in the car. Or repeated viral exposures of a specific type. Or a specific type of air pollution.
Either way, it’s not like everyone is going to be moving out of high pm2.5 areas anytime soon, or that we’ll be able to just solve the sources of pollution right now even if it is the cause.
Wildfires are already illegal in California. As is producing a lot of noxious smoke! They even have an entire (rather large) government division (CALFIRE) responsible for stopping them.
For some reason, nature DGAF.
Or do you have some other policy proposal? Banning lightning or fire perhaps? Making trees illegal?
reply