it is, for the agents of the shareholders. As long as the actions of those agents are legal of course. That's why it's not legal to put fentanyl into every drug sold, because fentanyl is illegal.
But it is legal to put (more) sugar and/or salt into processed foods.
That's why i used the sugar example - it's starting to be demonstrably harmful in large quantities that are being used.
I am against preventative "harmful" laws, when harm hasn't been demonstrated, as it restricts freedom, adds red tape to innovation, and stifles startups from exploring the space of possibilities.
Starting?
What a way to look at the world...
See early 2000s Google as a model for a righteous company and public perception of it as evil and subsequent antitrust litigation today, or what happened to companies involved in Opioid trade and subsequent effect on shareholders value
Shareholders are still human beings and the power they wield should be subject to public scrutiny.
> it is, for the agents of the shareholders
Even if we care solely only about shareholders, in extreme cases it is not beneficial also for them
However companies have balancing factors which are other than maximizing short term profits, such as moral image
All life grows and consumes as much as it can. It's what makes it life. "Control" happens when there's more life contesting the same limited resources, and usually involves starvation, but if the situation persists on evolutionary timescales, then some life adapts to proactively limit growth. Then, if some of that adapted life unadapts itself, we call that "cancer", which I think is what you were going for.
joke- The World Council of Animals meeting completes with morning sessions with "OK great, now who is for lunch?"
Not all people everywhere, but most successful businesspeople.
> It'd be so much more efficient to just stab-stab-stab and take the money directly.
It isn't though? If you do that then you get locked up and lose the money, so the smart psychopaths go into business instead.
And that's why the government regulates stabbing.
I tried to let it stand because it was clear what you meant, but ultimately could not.
which is exactly what the law of the jungle is. And guess who sits at the top within that regime?
Humans would devolve back into that, if not for the violence enforcement from the state. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the state to make sure regulations are sound to prevent the stab-stab-stab, not the responsibility of the individual to not take advantage of a situation that would have been advantageous to take.
of course not. Nobody does.
However, what happened to your civic responsibility to keep such a society to make it function? Why is that not ever mentioned?
The fact is, gov't regulation does need to be comprehensive and thorough to ensure that individual incentives are completely aligned, so that law of the jungle doesn't take hold. And it is up to each individual, who do not have the power in a jungle, to collectively ensure that society doesn't devolve back into that, rather than to expect that the powerful would be moral/ethical and rely on their altruism.
what i'm trying to imply is that every single actor, as an individual, are "bad-faith" actors. That's why it's only when collectively can each bad-faith actor be "defeated". But when society experience an extended period of peace and prosperity brought about by good collective action from prior generations, people stop thinking that such bad-faith actors exist, and assume all actors are good faith.
> I just do not want them in whatever society I have the capacity to be in
and you dont really have the choice - every society you could choose to be in, with the exception of yourself being a dictator, will have such people.
in ancient times, you could banish people from the village
> ... the answers are a statistical synthesis of all of the knowledge the model makers can get their hands on, and are completely unique to every individual; at the same time, every individual user’s usage should, at least in theory, make the model better over time.
> It follows, then, that ChatGPT should obviously have an advertising model. This isn’t just a function of needing to make money: advertising would make ChatGPT a better product. It would have more users using it more, providing more feedback; capturing purchase signals — not from affiliate links, but from personalized ads — would create a richer understanding of individual users, enabling better responses.
But there is a more trivial way that it could be "better" with ads: they could give free users more quota (and/or better models), since there's some income from them.
The idea of ChatGPT's own output being modified to sell products sounds awful to me, but placing ads alongside that are not relevant to the current chat sounds like an Ok compromise to me for free users. That's what Gmail does and most people here on HN seem to use it.
One could argue many users seem to prefer badly designed free products over well designed paid products.