darby_nine

> Ideally we want AI agents to have some morals (especially when empowered to act in the real world), not just know what morals are if you ask them.

Really? I just want a smart query engine where I don't have to structure the input data. Why would I ask it any kind of question that would imply some kind of moral quandary?

...which is silly. Search engines never had to deal with this bullshit and chatbots are search without actually revealing the source.

Not much of a moat vs other private enterprise, though

> I think it's better than the alternative.

I mean, why? Longer lives are not necessarily any happier. In fact, old age seems pretty physically miserable.

> If the Polynesians came from Asia and were able to reach the Americas

We are certain at this point. The genetic testing is pretty conclusive.

Well, until the cops start actually serving the public rather than being (again) security theatre, I stand by my skepticism. I understand other countries have much less organized-crime-like police cultures.

> Well because you need the rest of the language to make your program tell your system to do stuff.

That's not necessary for business logic, though. This would presumably be embedded in infrastructure that handled i/o separately.

Yea, but in this case the property is very special. I don't think anyone has a right to own a "name" for perpetuity, especially such a short one—that's just extending property rights to a nonsensical place.

Granted, I also have zero respect for people who think that trademarks, patents, and copyright are still working to promote rather than stifle the arts and sciences, so I can understand why my above sentiment might rankle.

If that's what you're looking for, why not rip out most of the language? You'll end up with something that looks a lot like Elm. You'll end up with a purely deterministic program with no i/o (albeit with a kind of crappy debugging experience).

> Why is police stationed in the subway a bad thing?

Mostly, it's just a waste of money. Just move the fee collection to taxes and you can free literally hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to stationing cops and stop pretending that fare skippers are going to financially cripple the city. Cops can't keep up with the kids anyway.

> Most of the time, they're lowly constables and recruits doing national service.

"Service" is a reach given most of what they do is... nothing. Literally just standing around as a physical manifestation of security theater. If they want to be useful they can build housing or distribute food or bring people healthcare.

Who wants to bring a baby onto a sinking ship?

It also helps that JPL is a public good and not a wealth-extraction machine

Tbh this seems like a win—you want to incentivize making as much use of those short domains as possible.

Better than letting cops do whatever they want with virtually zero public oversight or control

You think anyone other than the idf could train someone to fart in a subway for eight hours a day while contributing nothing to society

Heartbreaking.

I don't see how recognizing an emotion as irrational gives you certainty of calming it. Generally speaking, emotions don't arise from a conveniently rational level of consciousness. If they did they would be referred to with terms ofther than "emotion".

Oh no, that would also make society collapse. Amy change to society would make it collapse. We live in a very delicate ecosystem and the only way for anything to work is to beg the beautiful people for favor, as it should be.

Sure, but people are always going to make their own judgements, so why bother complaining about it? It comes off like you're trying to defend the industry as being equitable when it clearly caters to people with certain skills.

Regardless, it seems like bad branding in retrospect.

> There is no defensible justification for incorporating a money siphon into an entertainment product.

What do you mean? Society would obviously collapse if we did literally anything else—the Free Market is all that keeps people from murdering each other. By endorsing regulation you're just endorsing murder.

> She took less than a week to create a working, bug-free prototype, but then lost interest.

This is pretty common, no? Same reason why everyone thinks AI will change development: people mistake the initial time cost of building an initial prototype for being representative of the total cost of making the thing people actually demand (which mostly never happens).

I'm pretty conflicted answering this. On one hand reporting is miserable; on the other hand it's virtually impossible to exclude bias in hiring, especially if the hiring requires skills that people pay to learn.

I nominate "ultrix" as the most ironic name ever for a piece of software. Not only was it not the last, it turned out to be one of the first!

> and learning from information about the past.

You'd assume so based on the prevalence of information, but I'm not sure there's any evidence of this. Hell from my own interactions about the past with others, you might as well have completely wiped everything before WWII from cultural consciousness and pretended like the last 80 years are the only ones that matter. Some days it's feeling more like the last 40 years represent the only world people can even imagine, let alone have an opinion on.

> If we can say anything about the effectiveness of the argument, it's that it's completely impotent against new technology and tools.

Not if you care about these skills! It's not like Socrates was wrong, it's just that the world moved on without him. Having a good memory has nearly zero value these days.

> Yeah it's really difficult, but that doesn't mean you should just give up and take the average.

Presumably the rational approach would be mild skepticism about confidence, not specifically accepting or rejecting any claim. Which leaves this well within the grounds of "plausible".

> His critique is basically the same as 'calculators' will make us poorer at mathematics

Calculators did make us bad at arithmetic. It's just that people stopped caring.

I don't think this is bad, though, anything to avoid typing repetitive boilerplate, which is pretty miserable regardless of your skill level.

> Dynamic pricing allows workers more exposure to the value they generate

Now we just need to get this to work with respect to investors generating real value and not just profit and capitalism might actually be cooking something