lovich

Thank you for reinforcing my point that no US corporation wants to pay for training.

> But your competitors can pay them more anyway, because they have not spend their money on training.

No, they spent their time without even having a partially trained employee and just having empty positions. If they are still outcompeting you, access to labor wasn’t your problem.

You can structure a contract so that the company has the right to fire for performance still. It’s how moving bonuses are normally done with a “you’ll work here for X year/s or return the bonus”

US corporations are allergic to paying for training in any form.

Everytime it’s come up people always argue that if you train the employee they’ll just leave for more money once they’re skilled.

Somehow just paying them the market rate so they stay, or even making a (shudders) contract with the employee to stay for X number of years in exchange for the training costs is never an option.

They’d rather have the position stay empty or outsource outside the country even if that has associated issues with shipping costs or quality control.

Hey now, you’re getting dangerously close to implying the king did something wrong

Perhaps missing “the first attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power in the nations history at the behest of a sitting President”?

Got the same result. This service isn’t long for this world.

They know they are rational because they are rationalists. If they decide an idea is good it must be rational.

Before any of their defenders(and I’m including e/acc and most of TESCREAL in this criticism) come at me about how much introspection they do and how they constantly try to question their theories or be LessWrong you’ll have to explain things like prediction markets, Bankman-Fried, or the litany of other warped ideas coming out of this group that are causing harm to society.

Because it’s targeting gambling addicts as the rubes.

When you have shit like will the government attack X nation by 9:00 pm on Friday, it takes very little for the insiders with levers to decide if the event in question is going to happen, to make the event happen.

It’s beyond even regular corporate insider trading which was usually predicated on secret information, not the literal ability to decide if an event occurs.

This is similar to when Elon claims to be running what, 4-5 different companies as a ceo, and taking care of his children, and sleeping 6 hours a day, and then we observe him shitposting on Twitter constantly or showing off his gaming skills in a game that is literally a time gated grindfest.

You add up all the claimed activities and then realize it’s more hours than are in a day so someone’s lying.

I don’t see how this author can claim that these papers didn’t “…suddenly materialize from a magical “chatbot” in 2026” when it’s obvious that 1-2 people are not producing 258 papers that are tens of pages each in 9 months with any sort of academic rigor.

If I was going to be more verbose I’d say in the 10-15 years prior to AI there was such a demand for software engineers that people with poor social skills or with unique idiosyncrasies were tolerated so the odds of meeting odd people in software were higher than in the general public.

It may go further back than that but I don’t have experience before the 2010s

Yea, like I said. We all understood this as a bad thing and why. Then the rationalists came around and reasoned their way into how vice is a virtue.

An idealized prediction market could be a social good the same way a frictionless spherical cow is good for making my physics homework easier.

There is no way to remove the incentive for people with the ability to alter the events being bet on. Insider trading is generally considered a bad thing for the stock market because of the non symmetrical information for everyone trading but all of sudden in the past few years a cohort of people(rationalists) have found it virtuous

First couple of times I was annoyed. At this point it’s become a common joke that X isn’t coming to the party until they walk through the door.

It’s a mix of people with social anxiety and people who have FOMO and agree to three different events on the same day.

The more polite ones in that second group have done things like shown up in tuxes for a casual party and dipped 10 minutes later for some other event.

No talking to the various people in this category has done anything so they just get treated as nice to haves of they show up and we wait 0 seconds for them for anything scheduled.

> That's insane.

You meet a lot of weird people in software

Maybe that neurosis explains another phenomena I’ve noticed.

My household hosts a lot and we’ve come to expect a full on 50% flake rate, down to multiple instances of people getting to our street and deciding to stop at the restaurant at the end for food and go home instead of arriving.

It means if we invite less than 5 people there are occasions where literally no one shows up. It’s also difficult to plan for when the odds go in the other direction like one news year party where we invited 30 people, expected ~15 and had 29 show up.

> In reality, the "promise" of AI is that it can greatly improve many people's lives.

That is not the promise of AI. The promise of AI is that it can automate knowledge work.

Nothing about these models or the productivity they can bring is related to benefiting others. That would only come about from political control that forces the benefits to a large swath of people.

As it stands AI looks like it’s going to decimate the middle class even further as white collar work gets obliterated and the owners of the AI companies hoover everything up.

I havent used google in years.

I use duckduckgo, mostly by habit at this point, and if i fail to find anything i go to claude and ask it.

Im getting closer and closer to just defaulting to the AI model search every day. Especially when I want to find something that I can list off 5+ semi accurate details about but cant remember the name of.

> Nor have you laid out how traditional political and social structures are going to save your job (or anyone else's) in the long run.

I never stated that they would. That’s an opinion you manifested from thin air because I stated that I don’t think AI is going to lead to a social safety net on its own.

I think things are generally going to get worse for the average person with AI as all the benefits accumulate at the top.

Assuming the rise of AI and the fall of democracy doesn’t have a default mode of social safety nets, and we’re seeing leadership increasingly divorced from the will of the people already.

For reference on TESCREAL

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

> In space, that doesn’t apply.

How does capacity not apply in space? You can’t just boost a gpu into orbit and it’ll start running. It needs to be hooked into power and cooling infrastructure still and that will always be limited by how much infrastructure you have up there.

>The worst case scenario would indeed be if all the gains get concentrated and centralized, as the major AI labs seem to want, but I don't think it'll work out that way.

Youve laid out an idealistic view of how the world will work. You have not laid out how the transition between the current world where wealth is being concentrated somehow turns into UBI.

Even this sentence

> I personally don't think CEOs and politicians will end up being any more immune than junior programmers.

Implies that you think the capitalists who own these systems are going to be in charge since CEOs work for their boards and politicians largely follow their donors.

Again, lay out exactly how you think we move from our current system to UBI via AI technology.

>but I don't think it'll work out that way.

Is not you laying out how you think it will work, but a dogmatic religious belief with no evidence or logic behind it.

edit: Im sorry, I glossed over this sentence.

> Democracy at the nation-state level is pretty much toast anyway...

Are you a rationalist, e/acc, or someone related to TESCREAL, or especially anything touching on Curtis Yarvin? If so no need to answer, I think you guys are in a cult with the modern equivalent of Dianetics, so we are never going to see eye to eye.

Quit with the bait. It’s obvious with your follow up questions that when you said “Genuine question:”, it was disingenuous.

In the extremely unlikely situation that you weren’t, and so the mods can see I engaged with the question.

I personally am against for economic reasons and feel like point 2 laid out by me is the most likely, although there is another option I could entertain where the people running these companies are so high on their own supply with the TESCREAL beliefs, or literally high like we’ve seen guys like Musk be in public, that they actually believe in this being economically plausible despite all contrary evidence.

Anyone managing a terrestrial data center that had this level of performance and called it a “data-center” much less “operational” would be fired for cause.

And ah, I see you’ve been dancing around with definitions and goomba fallacies around this thread. You definitely asked your question in good faith.

Because it’s so fucking stupid for the stated benefits that you get

- people getting nerd sniped and explaining why it’s wrong

- people who assume it isn’t wrong given the level of competence these groups have demonstrated already and are incensed by what they feel are bald faced lies to pump up stock prices like has been done before

- people who think this is some conspiracy(rightly or wrongly) to surreptitiously get weapon platforms or other support for weapon platforms into space.

The majority of tradeoffs for data centers make them always better on the ground. Just due to maintenance and heat alone.

> There are many people on HN that despise it and say it will not and will never work, but here we are, they are flying them up to space and presumably, will start working soon.

This is the one Google says they can run in 15 minute bursts and I’ve yet to find where they document what the cooldown period is before they can run again.

Also 99% of people saying it’ll never work are talking economically, not that theoretically you could get something up that works in the laws of physics.

I have it on good authority that the cat was entirely nude.

It’s not great, and I wasn’t arguing for it. I was saying AI isn’t going to lead to that on its own.

Mechanically how is AI going to lead to a social safety net? You can’t just handwave the productivity increases when they are all owned by a handful of concentrated wealth

1.1 million dollars and they are still allowed to run the gas generators?

I think this is inaccurately called a fine when it sounds like a retroactively applied permit fee to operate.

The METR investigation which relied on voluntary data provided from OpenAI instead of being forced open and having everything forensically investigated?

The METR investigation which took course over a few days and used OpenAI models to do the analysis?

The METR investigation which in the course of those few days apparently spent 400k in api credits which is giving gas town vibes?

The METR investigation is about as believable as the Twitter files where the journalists sat there and verbally asked a Twitter employee to query the database and then called that a full investigation into everything.

METRs own words below on their setup and time line

> The initial planned investigation period was two days on premises, but OpenAI invited us to return twice to review additional data and conduct additional experiments to address dataset limitations in earlier versions of this report, ultimately providing datasets that we verified to contain the vast majority of agent communication and activity related to this incident. As we describe in our investigation timeline appendix, we substantially deepened our understanding of this incident both times, significantly expanding and revising this report.[46]

> Over the course of this investigation, OpenAI provided us with the dump of ~1.2 million entries from the main message board and the dataset of ~1300 transcripts we describe below, as well as free API credits for GPT-5.6 Sol for analysis.[47] At our request, they raised the rate limits on our second and third period on premises,[48] which was very helpful for efficiently analyzing this large volume of data. We estimate we spent roughly ~$400K in API credits over the six days of our investigation.

> We did not have the ability to query HPIM (the primary model involved in this incident); OpenAI stated it was also not available to OpenAI researchers.[49] We also did not have the ability to directly access relevant data from OpenAI infrastructure, but we could request additional datasets and OpenAI shared additional datasets on several occasions.

> We requested to speak with researchers investigating this incident, and asked them questions to understand their impressions of agents’ behavior, reasoning, and collaboration in this incident and to understand how the datasets we were using were constructed. Over the course of our time on premises, we spoke with nine researchers in some depth. It was helpful for our investigation to be able to engage with many forthcoming and collaborative researchers, and we appreciate researchers making time on short notice during a busy period to inform our investigation.

Do you have billions of dollars?

> The problem is there is no amount of punishment that I can put on you that can even get anywhere close to the amount of damage you cased.

Sounds like your corporation should be dismantled then. But doing more than a fine in the millions is obviously not possible

Is the AI coming to save us in the room right now?

Don’t hint at it. Lay out the mechanics of how you think AI is going to become a safety net for the average person.

I think everyone is downplaying the sober part of your critique. We’ve seen these leaders visibly high while talking to the public about our future paths.

> It got boring 20 years ago now the fun part is figuring out what bait makes people make the argument, so I don’t have to

I say this from a glass house. You are an asshole.