It's actually not hard at all, it's only a problem for companies if they fail to keep it secret. Norway has had their tax records public for ages https://www.weforum.org/stories/economic-growth/norway-can-s... and their society and economy seems fine, except they it's extremely easy for new grade to know what they can ask for.
The "complications" are basically employer and manager propaganda because the information asymmetry suits them better than people realising they are undervalued and leaving
Salaries being a public record does come with some downsides for employees.
For the low-paid, it can make it even harder to get credit, or a place to rent, and it can be used for other kinds of discrimination. For the highly-paid, service providers and sales people can use the information to increase the prices you pay and make negotiation harder.
More transparency in a society is for the better. This shouldn't stop at salaries. Why aren't service providers required to disclose what they charge others? Why aren't dentists, lawyers, surgeons etc... required to report their stats? All of those would break information asymmetry and make for better decisions all around and less scams.
your bank already knows your salary, and if they don't they are going to ask for it as a condition to give you credit. in some countries landlords ask for proof of income too. the less regulated these areas, the more likely that is going to happen.
Even better, grocery stores might make various discounts and promotions eligible based on whether you belong to a certain bottom percentile of income. That’s the holy grail of price discrimination („milk them for all they have”), which is now attempted to achieve only through imperfect means such as premium brands, up-sells etc.
Me. Because I used to love reviewing conference papers and AI has utterly ruined it.
If the end result was reliably good people wouldn't be hating on it, but the vast majority of people are using AI not to elevate their output quality, but to churn out slop quantity, because that's where the incentives push them.
Anyone who actually engages with the output can tell that the speedups you get on producing good prose, maintainable codebases or high quality abstractions are much much less because you can't let the LLM go brrr, so AI output tends to be drivel, and banning it is a good way to prefilter.
It'd the same reason journals and conferences desk reject you if you don't follow their formating rules or don't use their template - it's a price of admission that ensures some consistent quality level, and if you couldn't be bothered to learn how to follow the rules, why should we trust you that the content is worth out time?
I agree that there needs to be some quality control. But why impose it this way?
This penalizes also people who have really good contributions. I've made some related points in the other thread above.
I got the popup and clicked away because I don't have time or tolérance for AI interactions, but a friend of mine has been organizing people with critical opinions to give their takes as a way of putting strong criticisms of AI companies on their own website and reach out to the anthropic workers to try and make them see they are building the panopticon, I'm skeptical that anthropic won't censor everything but would be interesting to see whether that effort will actually move the Overton window a bit
In smart psychopath Logic, because life is a repeated game and you will have moments of weakness and imperfections, so you would like the world to he in a moral equilibrium where even if you let your guard down for a moment you will not risk immediately be butchered by the other person. The game theory of collaboration and nice mess is pretty solid once you account for transaction costs, risk, repeated interactions etc.
For most people, given that they are part of a species who's superpower is collaboration at planet scale and who evolved accordingly, the hedonic pleasure of acting morally congruent and being embraced by a community, as well as hard wired tendency towards empathy does the rest of the trick. How you grow up and what trauma shaped your intellectual and emotional development will affect who you consider worthy of empathy and care ofc.
https://install.dev.fast/linux ! we just have a fedora build right now, but if you're looking for another distro let me know and i can put it on our roadmap.
To shamelessly shill a passion project: A friend of mine and I try to be skeptical-but-reasonable on our podcast https://kairos.fm/muckraikers/ we aggregate papers and reporting and try to contextualize it with our own (hopefully useful) perspectives and takes
In game theory, cooperation is a dominant strategy and evolves consistently. Slave owners and other injustice committing humans often invoke "human nature" out of trying to cope with their knowledge that it is wrong but whatever trauma or other thing makes them do it anyway, to absolve themselves of agency.
(To be clear, not targeting you personally here, but targeting the rhetoric and fallacy)
Cooperation is an unstable strategy. If everyone else is cooperating and not punishing defectors much, defecting is vastly better for you.
If everyone else is defecting and you can cooperate with a few people, that's slightly better for you. Hence we have high-trust and low-trust societies, gatekeeping, etc.
Sure, and now compare polities which manage to keep defection to a minimum or structure the process of "defecting" to serve the polities purpose instead of being truly adversarial. Bruce Bueno de Mesquitas "the logic of political survival" and various works by daron acemogolu have the data on how much better these polities do.
If there's no pure play dominant strategy, you will always get a fraction of defectors willing to try their luck. But coopération still emerges, and the polities that manage to cooperate more still tend to survive and thrive more.
Many kinds of defecting aren't punished much. For example we don't refuse to buy things made with slave labor. Some people do, but they're an extreme minority. So being a slave owner is rewarding.
Not really, kindness also exists. It is the escape hatch from the evolutionary zero sum game and let's you pick a better equilibrium (bargaining vs pure Nash).
We can just not fight. There is enough room and resources,we can get more of them and build more efficient tech, and we are all more alike than different.
Kindness is an unstable equilibrium unfortunately. Mother nature is totally uninterested in it. Otherwise we would still all be protolife quasi-cells, because consuming other cells and not sharing resources isn't kind.
Maybe you argue that we are human and intelligent, so we can override this inconvenience with a system of our own design. My response would be "Sure, put your guns down and burn them, I won't stop you."
Again, it's an unstable equilibrium. Power on the other hand is dramatically more stable.
Thats your take, I tend to not agree. Nature, with all its balance by destruction, has one approach but we humans can and do things differently in some cases, for our greater benefit.
We don't kill weak links in our population just like mother nature intended and keeps doing left and right everywhere all the time, a good chunk of this forum would not pass those harsh and often random tests yet its/ours added value is non-trivial and surpasses any additional effort by society (at least I like to think that).
'Everything good in this world is kindness'. I have yet to meet a person, situation or story where this would not apply.
There's more ways of neutralizing power than meeting it with equivalent threat. You can also make it not worth exerting the power, or introduce enough friction to let it evaporate itself.
And so far, the highest historical power concentrations have always been un-stable, while the polities that put checks on that power and embed themselves in cooperative trade networks lasted for much longer
Meh, that "empathy is weakness" is just an ideology, not the historical thing. Nazi lost the war after all. Fascists in general tend to start wars and then loose them, precisely because their arrogance and lack of empathy makes them unable win long term.
The constant war of all against all with no kindness kind of societies don't do all that well, actually. Human societies do best when the kind people assert themselves against sociopaths. And human societies do worst when the sociopaths get free reign.
The "complications" are basically employer and manager propaganda because the information asymmetry suits them better than people realising they are undervalued and leaving
reply