Senaste sökningarna
Sökalternativ
From @pluralistic
“A commonplace among model users is that we must make "The Big Tradeoff" – we can either reduce inequality, or we can increase prosperity, but not both, because reducing inequality means taking resources away from the business leaders who would otherwise build the corporations whose products would make us all better off.”
https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/03/all-models-are-wrong/
As long as the likes of Sam Altman holds this belief, we are all in grave danger.
@pluralistic Last week on Lex Fridman’s podcast, Sam Altman repeated a familiar line, also alluded to in his ‘Moore's Law for Everything’:
“I am a big believer in lift up the floor and don't worry about the ceiling.”
Deeply unwise. The difference between a million$ and a billion$ is roughly a billion$. Uncapped wealth devalues our common wealth.
If #AI can’t make the people in power any wiser, it’s not gonna do us any good.
@erlend @pluralistic I've come around to the opinion that we need a maximum wealth distribution: one order of magnitude between the poorest (hint: universal basic income) and the wealthiest (hint: 100% income tax above 10x UBI level—progressive taxation bands below it). Socialized education, healthcare, housing, and old age/disability support. Only by ensuring even the richest need the common services as much as the poor can we guarantee the services will be properly funded.
@erlend @pluralistic Peg the UBI at £10K/year; maximum legal income is then £100K/year. But you keep the UBI if you're working, so even a job paying £18K/year (average unskilled UK wage) puts you on £28K/year income. UBI also applies to pensioners and children, so families with dependents get the support. (Mechanism for distributing UBI for youngsters to be determined.)
Goal: to ensure that for those in work, the distribution of income is closer to 2x to 3x than the maximul permissible 10x.
@erlend @pluralistic If this sounds like socialism to you, then you're damned right it's socialism. We've tried the alternative and it's morally depraved, ethically bankrupt, AND DOESN'T WORK.
@cstross I live in Norway; socialism is the air I breathe 
We’ve got most of the same underlying issues of modern democracy yet to be solved over here as well (money in politics, no ranked-choice voting, billionaires, overconsumption..), but at least we’re long past debating whether or not the job of the state is to keep its citizens educated, healthy and safe.
@LillyHerself @erlend Monarchy—a neutered, homeopathic variety—has one potential advantage: it blocks the apex of the social pyramid from becoming a target for occupation by ambitious psychopaths. (Risk: that you accidentally breed a psychopathic monarch.)
@cstross @erlend That's the model I was always taught. But having observed Sweden, Spain, Denmark, Norway and the UK's monarchies over the past 40 years, one thing has become very clear to me. Even if you have a neutered monarchy, it is discreetly always trying to wield more power. Sweden is the case I have watched most closely. When I moved there in the 1970s, Sweden considered itself "post-christian" and everyone assumed the monarchy was on its last legs. That slowly changed.
@LillyHerself @cstross @erlend
while i agree most wypipo-swedes are christians but don't know it, i find it weird to bring up the monarchy, since it is just a speck in the money-and-power-game besides families like ax:son-johnson, klingspor, borelius, wallenberg and so on
@troglodyt @LillyHerself @erlend It's becoming increasingly clear (esp. from current political polarization in the USA but also in Aus/UK/Russia/elsewhere) that "christian" has become a label for a widespread socio-cultural identity rather than a religious creed—one that tilts strongly towards authoritarianism, patriarchy, nationalism, and homophobia. Lots/most of these identity-christians don't actually follow any of the religion's tenets, but identify it as supporting their own practices.
@cstross @LillyHerself @erlend
sure, but i also mean in more subtle, unconscious ways. for example, swedes think they have a far-reaching freedom of religion, however, it doesn't reach farther than belief and practice in your own bedroom, just like protestant christianity. which doesn't have any public festivals or practices, it doesn't demand that you wear certain clothes or symbols, eat specific food, and so on
all that isn't considered religion here, it's just culture of the other
@troglodyt @LillyHerself @erlend I note that "doesn't have public festivals, doesn't demand you wear certain clothes" in western discourse tends to be blind to christian religious holidays like Christmas, Easter, and Sunday (*every* Sunday), and thinks anti-veil laws are a defense of civil liberties against muslim extremism rather than an explicit imposition of the dominant christian culture's dress code …