fsckboy

>That’s an overly simplified model. AI companies spending results in infrastructure beyond the company such as manufacturing capacity, power lines, software systems, and even individual expertise.

in a competitive marketplace, economic profit will go to zero. so whether an AI company buy or rents outside infrastructure, or builds it itself doesn't matter, it makes no difference. Therefore, if your argument is "outside infrastructure X", you can see the meaning of that by looking at "assume the company bought up the whole industry including outside infrastructure, then go back and look what I said and it still applies" A company monopolizing outside infrastructure for its own use would not abuse its monopoly against itself, but even if it did, makes no difference the extra profit and extra loss would balance out. Would it abuse its monopoly against downstream customers? if we use the existing market prices unchanged in our example, that is analyzing the case where it does not, which is the case that is comparable to the current situation.

or to put it another way, let's say these are all publicly traded companies competing. What if I told you "hey, i've investigated the ownership of all these public shares, guess what, Elon Musk owns them all, he owns every share of every company in AI, and all the infrastructure suppliers. Does that change the analysis from what we see in the marketplace? no, it doesn't. You want to draw a bigger circle around more affected parties, the suppliers to the infrastructure suppliers: OK, Elon owns those too it turns out.

nobody is analyzing the future here, we're talking about the case of AI going bust, not trying to predict AI going bust.

if were were going to project the future, we still would not do it with a simulation using functions to model companies to try to come up with meaningful profit numbers, we would project profits (and costs and revenues) based on margins of similar industries

I know what i'm talking about, and you don't. That does not come from me being rich, it comes from me being raised as a far left-socialist, and being on the spectrum, and then studying economics and finance in graduate school and realizing what was true and what was wishing. Capitalism and free competitive markets solve exactly the problem that centrally planned economies are explicitly trying to solve but always fail to. Not only that but with predictable results. As you can now see, I not only have a heart and I have a brain, and I have education. And I have the inculcated capacity to read the socialism no matter how its hidden and between what lines.

you tried to dismiss me by saying "oh but you're doing well" as if that meant anything. You brought it up, not me, but inasmuch as it does means anything, it suggests I'm winning the race that you purport to be an expert at.

I do not come from wealth, my family is largely working class. I have grown my wealth dramatically because I understand how the market works. I didn't know a priori what would happen, I just took what they taught me in school and applied it with extreme discipline and without fear. Turns out that works.

>The equity of the economy is not very similar at all to a game

the economy is about efficiency, and supply meeting demand, and fair exchange of factors and products for pareto optimality. that is what equity should mean but it's not what you mean by it. Your equity lifts only some boats and at the cost of lowering and even sinking others. Nobody can prove except by simple observation that your equity does not in fact lift boats.

>The ubiquitousness of

and here I was thinking ubiquity was ubiquitous for this concept

>ubiquity of bash is among the few reasons...

I guess I'm getting older than I thought, I feel uneasy pangs every time I use a bashism because /bin/sh is the ubiquitous one.

it's mostly actors who traffic in tropes, and also actors who travel in troupes... coincidence? i think not

>Let me guess: you’re doing relatively well for yourself?

Let me guess, you sit down next to Kobe Bryant and start by saying you're going to tell him about winning basketball?

>Treating the entire economy as a single company gives nonsensical results

trust me bub, I've studied much more econ than you. If a competitive market sets the prices (check, that's what is happening), and you want to analyze statistics of a sector (check, that's what we are doing), you can take those competitive prices as "given" and hold them constant, and consolidate the assets of in industry into one virtual entity. No claims were being made about competition, the claim is that "it is validate to consolidate statistic of what you are trying to study.

"how much did the AI sector make last year? how much will it make next year?" is not answered by running a simulation of competitive marketplace with production functions.

>>could somehow know the future

>Perfect accuracy isn’t the only possibility here, there’s levels of error.

if you deviate from the market's prediction of the future, you are increasing your levels of error; why do that?

HN deletes certain words at the beginnings of submitted titles: could we add "It's time to talk about" and potentially also "my"?

>infrastructure beyond the company

consider all the companies in a market and those that feed that market to be one virtual mega company, add up all the valuations and revenue streams, costs, etc and aggregate all the investors into one. Nothing changes about the picture I drew. We simplify models to make the real world understandable.

>negative impact ripples through the economy due to misallocation of resources

free or relatively free financial markets are the only way, the best way, the ne plus ultra of ways we know to allocate capital, we have no better way than for the owner of the capital and the reapers of the loss or reward to make a considered opinion that is risk "impedance" matched. By definition, the market does not "misallocate" capital, it optimally allocates it.

your theory is that we could somehow know the future, but that's a fallacy.

if these companies go bankrupt, they will have spent (not lost) all their money, the large amounts of money that they got from investors. That money generated profits for other companies they bought stuff from, and income for their employees, and capital gains for other people if AIco acquired other companies.

the market cap of a company is computed by the current price of a company's shares, the last price paid; not all the shares of the company were bought at that price, the ones who got shares cheaper are showing paper profits, unrealized. Those who have already cashed out have money in their bank accounts that was transferred from people who wanted to get in. If the company goes bankrupt, their shares will be worthless, but the money they paid for them still remains in the accounts of people who sold their shares: the money was not lost even if some people lost money.

I'm not going to keep going through it but the reason it works to value things the way we do is that the values are comparable and they frequently work out, so snapshots of the economy and the participants are comparable. But "losses" are not like taking gold and feeding it into some deep fold in the earth where it will disappear into the molten middle of earth.

Stock valuations are "expectations for the future". Those expectations weren't money, they were lottery tickes where the lottery consisted of human creativity and human effort. People buying and selling share are moving real money around to trade the expectations. The money didn't go anywhere, it's still there, it's just that expectations for the future have been reduced. It all boils down to humans trading some of their time and potential on a bet that things work out. Some people's effort gets more rewarded than others. Not every team wins the world cup, but people like to play and like to watch.

>He takes decisions almost as random as a 20 side dice

I'll bet he knows it's a "20 sided die" though, or is he that dumb?

since any given day here there will be a majority unconcerned or actually defending code bloat, well now, this uniinteresting topic is just chickens-coming-home-to-roost. All the benefits of Moore's law are not gone, today's prices reflect a very large N of an exponential decline of cost per bit; these price increases are linear, not even a 2nd order polynomial, so why all the angst? go to your room and clean up your code.

if it's a fallacy that if it’s OK (or at least negligible on a small scale), then it must be OK on a large scale, then the alternative "it's ok at a small scale but not at a large scale" starts to slide us down a slippery slope... fallacy.

>He often needs to ask people to smell him during the day

tell him to use Dry Idea antiperspirant (I'd say unscented), the stuff blows anything else away. no need to thank me. (no I don't work there, long term user who ever now and then runs out and is reminded how good it is)

what's up with vegetables though? I love vegetables, but if I were asked what was the thing I least liked about them, I'd say "the smell"

another similar "business model" for transportation also did not get invented till "late": a "packet ship" is a ship that sails between ports on a schedule, independent of whether it's fully loaded. I don't know why it's a packet boat, not a big deal but I read a lot of seafaring books as a kid and it was always ship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_boat

Sørenity now.

>So we ditch the philosophical puzzle and focus on the reality we can perceive and reason on. The problem is that consciousness is a philosophical invention (and a slippery one at that)

whether or not matter was continuous and could be divided forever by repeated halving, or if there were "atoms" was a philosophical puzzle more than 2000 years before "we" found the answer. That it was "atoms" was one of the 2000y.o. hypotheses. same with dividing time and distance. It's ridiculous to dispense with good hypotheses.

we know that consciousness exists before any other thing. We don't even know that the so-called physical world actually exists, only that we we consciously think we observe it, but we can wake up believing dreams or psychotic imaginings. How can you enjoy watching The Matrix, and yet walk out so smug about you knowing the answers before they've even been found?

I personally do not believe in the material universe. All of our theories and descriptions and empricism about it proves that it is mathematical only. All that exists can be (and is) explained by math (and perhaps some computer science in the sense that there is state, and math doesn't require state) I call upon rational STEM types to reject the material universe the way you wish to dispense with consciousness. Consciousness, like math, is immaterial, and we have more evidence for immateriality than we do for materiality. When our hypothetical hands touch each other in a handshake, you would even point out that on a quantum level, nothing touches anything.

tldr for the wikipedia article:

this plane did not crash, it made an emergency landing 2 miles from the airport in an onion field. Only 10 crew and 1 passenger survived. The other 123 souls aboard died of smoke/CO inhalation from the fire.

the sole surviving passenger, 21-year-old Ricardo Trajano, disobeyed the instructions to remain in his seat.

>Fisker had built what Cory Doctorow, the digital rights author and activist, pointedly called a “software-based car.” Virtually every subsystem in the Ocean — brakes, airbags, shifting, battery management, door locks — needed to periodically connect with Fisker’s cloud servers for diagnostics or regular operations.

pretty sure you can say "Fisker built a software-based car" without being "pointed" and without needing to cite Cory Doctorow. It would be a pretty anodyne statement in an article about owners taking over maintenance of the software that is pervasaive in their electric cars from a defuct manufacturer,

suggestion to the maintainers: please find some place in the UI to allow "Fiskers cut and paste"

https://www.fiskars.com/-/media/fiskars/images/united-states...

>We recently discovered that an unauthorized party obtained a token with access to the Grafana Labs GitHub environment, enabling the threat actor to download our codebase.

I don't much like the securityese dialect of bureaucratese, but doesn't it make more sense as "We recently discovered that a threat actor obtained a token with access to the Grafana Labs GitHub environment, enabling the unauthorized party to download our codebase" ?

you can't just drop in buzzwords willy nilly, they buzz better in the right places.

>When I thought about Project Gutenberg I remembered that original brutalist non-design.

I suppose a printed book, black ink on paper, is "brutalist" and unpleasant to look at?

The text of a book shouldn't be encrusted with format, your reader or browser should contain the presentation that you want to see, find appealing, or need (accessibility).

spoiler alert:

the standard mandates that all dimensions (note particularly those calculated with 1.4142... sqrt 2)) be rounded to the millimeter. in the smaller sizes this error becomes significant and affects both linear dimensions and aspect ratios

the standard also has mfring tolerances allowing errors on the order of millimeters

his joke does not rely on the truth value of the mistake you think he made, and it is funny based on his expressed awareness that any articles potentially could have been written by AI, so his error could simply have been a misplaced word typo/grammar error rather than any cognitive omission on his part.

thanks, since i had never heard of it i had to look it up but I guess I misread it, wikipedia says the project was started in 2009, latest version in 2018. I noticed the difference in word between "project started" and "released", i'm growing numb-er, and jumped to a terribly erroneous conclusion. I have been killed by a rattlesnake.

>they weren't worth the electricity they cost to mine...I'd love to mine a bitcoin a day on my PC now...

you can!... but they wouldn't be worth the electricity now either. the cost of mining (amortization of hardware costs plus electricty) is the value of bitcoin. if bitcoins are a bargain to mine, more people will mine them thereby reducing rewards.

should you have mined more back then if you had magical perfect knowledge of the future? no: they weren't worth the electricity.

instead you should have bought more of them back then.

>AI data centers will be protected like embassies.

so AI data centers will be protected by relying on hostile or unstable governments to live up to diplomatic agreements, and every so often one will be ransacked like in Teheran 1979?

https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2651.html

>thinking black bishop can only go to black squares. and agreed this is a bit ambiguous

sorry, "The task is to place four black queens and one black bishop on the chessboard" is not at all ambiguous.

most people would name hack (1984) or the fork nethack (1987) as the successor to rogue (1980). brogue (2018) i never heard of till now but probably i aged out by then (aged out of spending many mindless i.e. repetitive hours of fun)

his comment is that any self respecting article ought to have been written by AI, and if so it should have been written in Lojban.

>It's strange to me that this blog post was written in English. If AI is available, why aren't we all communicating in Lojban?

your comment seems to have not gotten his joke which was a recursion on English of the point of the article vis a vis Python

>Trademark registration for Clark Stanley's Snake Oil brand Liniment, June 12 1900. Library of Congress. Public Domain

I don't read the trademark registration as "snake oil" brand, it looks more like "Clark Stanley's" brand. The word brand should follow the trademarked name, and while this application does not contain the term brand, up at the top it says "Trademark. Clark Stanley. Linament."

the article starts out "over the 19th Century", and this trademark is from 1900, so a latecomer to the snake oil market, unlikely to be able to trademark the term "snake oil".

i've gotten multiball in the Windows version of SpaceCadet, pretty sure I wasn't the victim of the Full Tilt version supply chain attack because while I knew about other tables I've never seen any of them.