I don't think you disagree with the comment. Maybe it's a cynical way to describe the situation, and it sounds mean, but it doesn't make it untrue.

If mathematicians can't be motivated to understand math and advance human understanding via (for example) reading AI proofs because they can't put their name on new discoveries, then yes we need to figure out the motivations.

> It is highly reductive to argue that the only motivation is as crass as you put it.

"Genuine curiosity and underestanding" is apparently not enough to motivate all mathematicians (I'd even extend this to all researchers in all fields). If AI creates an environment where "prestige" can no longer be assigned to individuals and this creates a crisis in motivation among researchers, well, this is a problem, and accusing researchers as "greedy for status and clout trying to write their name on new discoveries in blood" is a somewhat mean and distasteful description of how we got into the situation. But again, not untrue IMHO.

Note that they didn't say the greed for status is the only motivation. We're adults here. We can see the strawman. I think we're all on the same page. Quit crying over insults.

It's just that incidentally, "entity you do not trust outside your jurisdiction" also includes basically your average crypto peer.

What the heck? Where is your evidence that using washing machines at inconvenient times is going to destroy the environment?

If your argument is that any use of electricity from fossil fuels is destroying the environment, then nobody should even be charging their phones at night. Time-shifting washing machines isn't going to fix carbon emissions since they're going to be emissions at any time of the day.

I don't know how you guys in Europe managed to gaslight yourselves into justifying regression of social and technological development. A lot of these moral arguments do not make sense. You said it yourself -- industry is incentivized to convince the public to use less electricity during peak hours so they can pay less. It's pretty much a psyop by capitalists. And for some reason you're shilling for them even though presumably you're paid exactly zero buckaroos

I certainly don't view the windless day where the price is a little higher than average as a cause not to use my washing machine as on average I win out.

I'm not sure it's useful generalising a continent of peoples political opinions but I see renewables, storage and smart grids as really new tools that society previously had no access to, it's a massive carrot not a stick.

Many of us believe that the alternative is a serious risk of severe climate change that would be much more disruptive. Not being able to use your washing machine at night is going to seem like the smallest of minor inconveniences if crops start failing and we don't have food, or cites end up underwater triggering mass migration into neighbouring areas and that leads to large scale societal conflict.

Of course, if you don't believe that those things will happen then caring about climate change seems irrational. But belief in (anthropogenic) climate change is the mainstream view on all sides of the political spectrum in most of Europe.

More ironically, air conditioning is tolerated if powered by oil (like in cars), but not by electricity (like in buildings). At least Europe is better at EV adoption, but still far behind many parts of Asia.

They're going to invest 30 billion euros in direct government _subsidies_ in adding 11GW of natural gas generation.

For comparison, this amount of money would buy 5GW of nuclear power generation. But nuclear power is basically free after the initial capital expenses, and natural gas generation will still require fuel (gas or maybe hydrogen).

It's crazy that you guys do.

That's a very weak straw manning of their (admittedly not strongly stated) position.

You'd look better if you had a shot at steel manning where they're coming from rather than adopting such a weak and trivial rebuttal.

The evidence for man-made climate change is quite compelling, and taking personal responsibility for your own impact on it isn't hard. I don't really see doing my washing at 6am as 'social and technological regression'. Quite the opposite actually - my washing machine has bluetooth and an app. I can tell it when to start.

The fact there isn't global pressure on corporations to be similarly responsible means my act of selflessness is ultimately a futile waste of time, but that's your kids and grandkids problem. I've chosen not to have kids, so I don't really care. I would suggest that choosing to have a family but not choosing to protect the environment as much as you can is an act of incredible selfishness towards your own children. They're the ones who'll have to live in a world with problems like water and food shortages. There is every chance that your grandchildren will die in a war over resources, and your view that tech is awesome will be little comfort to them.

Sure

Where is the the evidence for me using the washing machine at the wrong time causing climate change?

As I said, I don't mind people claiming that washing clothes itself is bad for the environment (it contributes a little bit), but the idea that it's bad specifically because I wash it at a bad time? That's insane.

In particular for the noncompete ban, I believe that trying to enforce a noncompete-adjacent action like this would open you up to being sued by the employees who would have been hired, and the hiring company, in California court.

Greed is a myth. The only greed people have for is money, which is a creation by the capitalist machine. But when it comes to concrete things, human greed is limited by their lack of imagination. If you take away abstract money, over-abundance is definitely possible.

Don't know if GP's comment has any backing at all, but the statement that "not all judges agree" is probably literally true (though not necessarily meaningfully true), given that it's a recent case in a district court, issue hasn't been heard in an appeals court yet (presumably), and the fact that all things AI are constantly in flux.

That said I think it's generally a good idea to err on the "safe side" and assume that there's no privilege at all in communications with purported AI lawyers.

Thing is there isn't a "principle" from we won't use AI designed/implemented things. It just depends on the cost/benefit/risk balance, and the risk part is largely subjective (because we don't have enough data, and if we avoid using AI before we have enough data, then we won't have data for a long time).

I don't think you have a consistent argument or stance.

It seems your argument is that nobody should be reading the "AI slop" proofs, because if they were seriously studied, a lot of them will turn out to contain errors, and you know this because people have checked and found 1% of them to be wrong, which you knew even before anyone checked them, because nobody should be reading those proofs in the first place.

At least you'd be consistent if you keep arguing that it's going to be a waste of time to check them. You knew it right? Why even bother to see what the numbers turned out to be?

Robots automating everything and humans not needing to work was the stuff paradise fantasies were made of.

Sure, it would be the end of capitalism (which, I guess you could describe as "economic dark age"), but people these days have so little imagination what life outside of capitalism looks like that ideal societies sound like a horror story.

Communism was a horror for multiple reasons, but two big ones were: the planners didn't have the data or ability to actually plan (the interactions in a market economy did that much better), and not doing the work you were assigned was a crime (that is, slavery).

AGI and AGLabor solves both these problems. If you don't need workers, you don't need to coerce them into work. And planning and massive data collection (and management in general) sounds like something AGI would work very well at. The conceit that the lower classes are disempowered before the capitalists never struck me as well founded.

If it's you and me, then hey, we can all live happily ever after pursuing hobbies and art, provided for by our mechanical friends, within the limits of resource availability.

If it's an AI trillionaire, things aren't so rosy. If they don't need workers, why would they even bother allocating outputs from the robots to keep us alive?

I don't doubt at all that some group or another will enjoy the fruits of artificial labour. The question is how we are going to get there, and whether that group is most people who are live today and their descendants, or just the families and friends of trillionaires.

I guess one could make the argument that with enough control, a trillionaire could amass a private robot army. But I think regular humans still win (after an epic battle of course).