pasquinelli

i agree. "capitalist" is the word for what people really mean when they talk about "the rich"

you might be giving them another small negative experience. you've certainly given me one.

as for iran, they've been the picture of restraint since trump's first term.

could you explain this? the comment you're replying to, how is it passive-aggressive? seems more regular-aggressive to me.

oh, no i'm not. *you're* telling me what i'm saying because you don't have the attention span to read, but have unlimited patience for hearing yourself talk.

yeah yeah, sure sure

so the faster-than-light travel seemed plausible?

but if you're working well within your ability to recover and you add t and change nothing else, how do you get stronger?

then a new constitution it is!

him eating apples when in season seemed to me at first like an anachronism, but actually, i do that. years ago i got fed up with apples that were whatever, so i decided to only have apples when i could find mcintosh (my favorite apple), and eat loads of them.

provides the most value over what period of time?

making every choice such that each choice, considered in isolation and unto itself, nets you the most value compared to what other choices would've gotten you at that same moment is analogous to best-first search. no one would say that best-first is the rational way to search for a path in a graph, because of all the ways it fails. so my question is, if there's one of those tragedy-of-the-commons situations that happens all the time, why do we insist on saying the participants are acting rationally when they are, metaphorically, walking into a wall forever?

no, it's irrational at the individual level too, because it will cause more harm than good to the individual firms. it's in the short-term that the cost savings are had; the demand destruction is long-term and outweighs the cost savings.

that's what the abstract says. the only issue i have is insisting on calling that rational. it's like saying eating all the seed corn is rational if you can eat most of it yourself. in the moment you're winning, so it's rational. but tomorrow everyone has none. why do we call that rational?

why do we torture the word rational rather than phrase it as competitors are in some ways incapable of acting rationally?

if the optimal situation requires perfect knowledge that can't be had then it's not the optimal situation, it's a fantasy. it's like saying the fastest route through a maze is a straight line from the start to the finish-- that would be true if the maze wasn't there.

there are two ends to what i'm arguing but people seem to only be able to hold one in their mind at a time.

> This demand externality traps rational firms in an automation arms race, displacing workers well beyond what is collectively optimal.

you can't be trapped in a sub-optimal situation and be rational at the same time. the rational thing for these rational competitors to do would be to agree to slow their deployment of ai, because the cost savings will be more than lost to demand destruction down the line. so if they won't or can't do that, they aren't rational. on the flip side, if it is actually impossible to slow ai deployment, then the firms are rational and the situation they find themselves in isn't actually sub-optimal.

it's irritating to me because i often see persuit of self-interest even to one's eventual detriment held up as "rationality", which may be true in some technical sense within the field of economics (i really couldn't say), but is certainly not true for, like, actual rationality. myopic selfishness is never rational.

that article links to the dod's own reporting.