Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | go_elmo's commentslogin

"just trust the llm bro, it will figure it out" - no brains used here, its staggering...


And if youre a high income tech worker you can do this magic yourself. The difference in the trading account is not noticable but the memory of the great feeling of helping & giving remains. 1k is a lot for most people! https://www.givedirectly.org/


4. Manage the Nitrogen Cycle

Easy solution - eat less products that pass an animal first - reduces nitrogen pollution by 10x intantly, low tech.

I'd re-formulate: 4. Make people more flexible to changing their mindsets & habits - this is the ultimate problem.


In other words, a boil-the-ocean scheme.

Solutions that require a great many humans to change an ingrained behavior are usually non-starters.


Most agricultural subsidies flow towards those harmful animal products, giving alternatives a fair treatment with subsidies could induce a meaningful shift already. But again - political and thus hard on a non technical level


Easier to just make factory farms illegal no?


Imagine, starts much earlier, everyone has a birth certificate. /s


Buddhism is agnostic and non dogmatic in its foundation, pretty clean overall


Make it nerdy enough to scare of agentic coders only. Also, blackjack and hookers are said to be helpful in such circumstances.


sourcehut is pretty close


> Also, blackjack and hookers are said to be helpful in such circumstances.

Actually, forget about the site...


Good point - its not a previously inexistent mechanism - but AI leverages it even more. A russian troll can put out 10x more content with automation. Genuine counter-movements (e.g. grassroot preferences) might not be as leveraged, causing the system to be more heavily influenced by the clearly pursued goals (which are often malicious)


It's not only about efficiency. When AI is utilized, things can become more personal and even more persuasive. If AI psychosis exists, it can be easy for untrained minds to succumb to these schemes.


> If AI psychosis exists, it can be easy for untrained minds to succumb to these schemes.

Evolution by natural selection suggests that this might be a filter that yield future generations of humans that are more robust and resilient.


You can't easily apply natural selection to social topics. Also, even staying in that mindframe: Being vulnerable to AI psychosis doesn't seem to be much of a selection pressure, because people usually don't die from it, and can have children before it shows, and also with it. Non-AI psychosis also still exists after thousands of years.


Even if AI psychosis doesn’t present selection pressure (I don’t think there’s a way to know a priori), I highly doubt it presents an existential risk to the human gene pool. Do you think it does?


Historically, wealthy and powerful people present the largest risk to the human gene pool, arguably even larger than disease.


> Genuine counter-movements (e.g. grassroot preferences) might not be as leveraged

Then that doesn’t seem like a (counter) movement.

There are also many “grass roots movements” that I don’t like and it doesn’t make them “good” just because they’re “grass roots”.


In this context grass roots would imply the interests of a group of common people in a democracy (as opposed to the interests of a small group of elites) which ostensibly is the point.


"The interests of the common people" is a very dangerous collection of weasel words. The whole damn point of democracy is realizing that you cannot just delegate power to 'better people' and expect them to rule in interest of the common people. Because that is basically exactly what royalists were promising!


I think it is more useful to think of “common people” and “the elites” not as separate categories but rather than phases on a spectrum, especially when you consider very specific interests.

I have some shared interested with “the common people” and some with “the elites”.


Finally someone who understands me. Whatever becomes measurable, becomes controllable, which is the antidote to freedom, wildness, life (to some extent)..


My favorite Samuel Delany story is about a woman in a village who invents writing, and teaches it to all the children. She makes a rule that you're never allowed to write down people's names, as it will inevitably lead to keeping records comparing people, and thus leading to strife...


There's a good Ted Chiang story about how writing conflicts with a village's tradition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truth_of_Fact,_the_Truth_o...


I haven’t read that one, do you know of a collection that has it?


I believe it's in Tales of Neveryon, 'the tale of old venn.' The whole series is extremely incentive and goes on some very different directions... The Tale of Plagues and Carnivals in 'Flight from Neveryon' was also particularly mind blowing.


I’m ethically torn whether to upvote this


Being able to have simplicity of working on a task until it is done when society didn't have these per hour scheduling concepts. I remember hearing this referenced when learning about Amish and Native American cultures. Essentially, this is what were doing. When it is finished, we move on to next. No arbitrary start/stop time because some hand on a dial is pointing at a certain number.


Captcha: "do something stupid" Ai: visible discomfort


Youre right, its a though question. Then again free will and the concept of "self" is an illusion.

Lets see where the world will go in this regard, only time will tell


>Then again free will and the concept of "self" is an illusion.

You don't need to follow this line of thinking very far to justify a hell of a lot of evil.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: