Especially since all the critical "business logic" in this case that will be shared is likely to be the backend store front APIs and what not. It's the platform things which will end up being radically different.
That has shown to be nothing but hot air and wishful thinking. The second they got into power they’ve thrown any hint of caring about the constitution out the window.
The Bill of Rights is just words on paper. For it to mean anything, the judicial needs to be willing to uphold it and the executive needs to be willing to enforce those decisions.
That becomes much less likely when they are allowed to become overly partisan. The officials who wield power lose the ability to distinguish between civic duty and the rule of law, and loyalty to the party itself.
The primary mechanism for redress of constitutional right violations under current law are monetary damages under FTCA, especially now that universal injunctions are dead. There's no actual counterbalance.
It’s been meaningless ever since the courts decided the “well-regulated militia” part doesn’t actually mean anything. It was never meant to be carte blanche access to every weapon under the sun
Most consumer websites won't demand you share a scan of your face to third parties, until they do. Same exact thing will happen with passkeys, guaranteed.
Exactly how http was the standard for normal websites and banks et. al. using https until, everyone was.
Now that was a good thing with https, not so much with passkeys until Chrome pushes through a change and says they'll only accept attested passkeys issued by their own google password manager/authenticator.
Adding HTTPS everywhere was not "a good thing", it's coping with a civilizational coordination failure that shifted us to a lower trust equilibrium. We're paying the price for that in an endless update treadmill for clients and even for read-only webservers. And more compute-cycles and latency spent on the encryption handshake. We also lost caching HTTP proxies.
This is bad actors creating a negative-sum outcome.
Not encrypting by default is a ludicrously unstable position as far as trust 'equilibrium' goes. It would be an astounding feat of coordination to avoid needing it as the internet grow, probably one that would cost far more than https.
The investors need to make a couple trillion dollars soon or it all falls apart, right? Maybe I misunderstand how the financing for this works, but my understanding is they have borrowed and set on fire an enormous pile of money as a sacrifice to summon the Machine-God.
If He fails to arrive, or arrives late, they will be the railroad financiers in the Panic of '73.
They do because the other part of the equation is that they need to keep spending a lot of money to build out infrastructure faster than their two most significant competitors, one of which is public and wildly profitable (for non-AI reasons) and another has already filed for IPO. So it puts them at a disadvantage to walk away from a massive cash infusion.
Two reasons. First, there's more money in the public markets, and Altman's appetite seems insatiable (he's the one who's been calling for gigantic, government-sponsored "Manhattan Project" efforts related to AI); and second, public money comes with fewer strings attached - private investors want protections, board seats, etc.
I certainly wouldn’t say that public money comes with fewer strings attached. Just different strings. But the strings that come with public money tend to have sharper legal teeth behind them.
Who knows what Altman wants? It's moot what individual motivations are as he is definitely fronting for investors who have significant power in the business.
Public money comes with legal fiduciary duties.
The reason to IPO is to get private money out, materialise the whole valuation.
At scale that OpenAI is valued at public markets are only place with enough of liquidity. At smaller scale private equity is an option. But if you are speaking of near trillion scale it really is not.
Unhinged conspiracy, if you take the implicit goals of AI research orgs at face value (I.e., replacing all knowledge work) and assume it possible; why would they drag a few thousand knowledge workers along to the promised land when they can just shed them after their usefulness has worn out?
What does adding a few more suckers to the pile of tens of millions of other suckers do to those that get the real benefits? It’s not like after they achieve their goals, the people who helped them would have the ramp or resources to recreate the process.
That then begs the question of whether there's any promised land at all after all knowledge work is replaced.
If you've made tens of millions of people unemployed over the timeline of a few years, then you no longer have nearly the market to sell goods and services - including your AI - to.
Assuming these guys answer that with "let's make UBI" - which is a huge assumption given the way SV fetishizes those who "create value" and looks down upon those who don't - you now basically have tech feudalism. The remaining upper crust "generously" pays the rest of the population enough to not starve until they die.
You'll basically have an entire society in stasis, with no hope of improving their lot, being given the bare minimum to keep humans alive, if that. Well, no hope of peacefully improving their lot.
From my read this line of thought was alluded to by GP's ironic "promised land". A promised land for whom? Not for the vast majority of humankind.
Comparisons to feudalism kind of sell the direness of the AGI vision short: in feudalism, the lord still depended on the peasants. The lord would be inconvenienced if he had them all killed. Not so with AGI! He won't even notice their gone.
Exactly why I’m confused with the “techno-feudalism” point as well. What are the serfs for if they’re useless (sans some physical labor maybe?). The AGI dream is for the smallest amount of humans needed to keep the system running, and if AI can do everything feasible, then that group is basically those that “own” the AI. Techno-feudalism, if even necessary, would be a fleeting blip in the end.
They are in a vicious circle there’s no good way out of. Building and operating their services is not operationally profitable. Therefore they need more funding. The only way to get more funding is to get a wider adoption and show new features. The only way to do that is to keep spending money.
Not being profitable in itself is not a problem or has not been historically. With software, there’s a bunch of investment into making the service but the variable cost of providing it is negligible. It’s ok not to be profitable because the growth of userbase will pay you back. Capex isn’t a thing, you can just rent somebody else’s from the cloud. This is how the world used to work pretty much for a quarter century, ever since the dot-com bubble. But OpenAI is not like it. Their variable cost is huge as is the capex to enable being able to even make that cost happen. It’s not that they are not profitable, it’s that their financial profile does not fit into anything this generation of decisionmakers is used to.
I don't know why comments pointing out this simple fact are getting downvoted.
The oversimplified view that has been drilled into startup discussions for years has been that IPO is the singular goal for every startup and they need to get there as fast as possible, but that hasn't been true for a long while. There are high profile examples like Stripe with no intent to go public any time soon. Some public companies are even gradually doing share buybacks partially to remove their public exposure.
Being a public company kind of sucks in many ways. I'll admit my sample size is small, but every post-IPO CEO I've known has expressed some regrets about going public. It was a fascinating revelation to me after being raised on the idea that IPO is the ultimate victory goal of every startup.
lol but they're trying to IPO, it's what sam altman has been talking about for the past 2 years? Are you saying you know something better about sam altman than his public opinions?
I am not sure why you'd, at this late date, think Sam Altman's public statements have anything to do with anything. Time and time again demonstrated compulsive bullshitter.
If they wanted to IPO they could do it at any moment and have a swarm of bankers and lawyers knocking down their door to work 16 hour days to get it done.
The only reason they’re not doing it is by choice, because they want to find an optimal time to maximize their returns.
There is no “we’re trying to IPO but can’t”. If they were actually trying, it would be in motion.
I'm guessing downvotes are not because people don't understand that this happens, but because based on OpenAI's words and actions it is highly unlikely that this is what they are doing. Also, Stripe has been confirmed to be profitable.
The alternative, as we all know, is well educated people staying in their home countries and creating companies that compete globally, meaning more services will move overseas. I'm OK with that but I think we need to be honest with ourselves that in no way will reducing H1Bs (or similar) increase local wages or employment rates in the software sector.
It's "funny" that organizations like the AP, NYT, etc, still quote Vance after that. He never really had credibility beforehand but any he may have had was lost, surely.
I have no horse in this race but I've seen nothing in this thread that could be considered "dangerous" by any possible meaning of the word. Just minor flame-warring between people who assume the other side is acting in bad faith, which of course instantly derails any chances of understanding.
Phrases like "she slept her way to the top", "she doesn't belong here", etc, are exactly the sort of rhetoric that leads to women's reports of assault being automatically dismissed. It's definitely dangerous. Ask the women in your life, I bet they'll agree.
I understand your concerns but I'd argue that it is a bad idea to make it so that women are automatically shielded from any kind of scepticism. There is a sensible middle ground here between "All women are lying harpies" and "Women can not be criticized at all without it being dangerous and misogynistic".
I think it's also important not to conflate an accusation somebody of benefiting from a partner's nepotism as equivalent to accusing them of sleeping their way to the top just because they're a woman.
Vociferous and aggressive "skepticism" on the RIP page for someone seems entirely distasteful, for one.
People crying about being "censored" -- their comments are still visible if you really want to see them -- that's not censorship. Just not a mandatory granted audience -- for saying shitty things about someone that just passed away... garners little sympathy from me.
And then putting that aside, the linked twitter thread people keep regurgitating has been shown by other people to contain a number of outright falsehoods.
So do we really need to have this conversation here? And why? Is this the right forum and time for these people to have it out with their grievances? I really think not.
I think there's a bit of a double standard on HN when it comes to criticism of the recently deceased. Robert X. Cringely's "RIP" post had numerous (and perhaps valid) criticisms of his actions over the years, and a follow-up post was made a day or two later solely about a controversy he was embroiled in. I don't remember seeing a single flagged criticism or accusation of poor taste.
I think it's important to view accusations through the lens of the accusations themselves, rather than to enforce a "Don't speak ill of the dead" culture which could be considered anti-intellectual and as stated previously often applied selectively. You say people are spreading falsehoods, and in that case I think it is wise to attempt to correct them, rather than assume the person taken in by them to be acting with devilish intentions, and to clearly separate those who are undeniably acting maliciously from people who may be acting innocently.
reply