undefined | Better HN

0 pointsceldon253y ago0 comments

Probably one where there isn't an intrinsic conflict of interest with AI risk. Or from a more traditional angle, one where the author's vanity isn't required to be appeased in order for users/customers to be happy. I'm of the opinion that you should do something with game-changing technology because the world needs it, not because you need an ego boost. All technology brings side effects, and there is no greater example of that than "democratized" AI...

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

idiotsecant3y ago· 4 in thread

People often (usually) do objectively useful things because it's in their selfish interests to do so, ego or otherwise. The surest road to failure is expecting people to act virtuously. Generally systems that assume virtue fail, and systems that assume selfish action and steer that selfish action towards the greater good succeed.

In other words, I don't care why people do things, only that they do.

celdon25OP3y ago

That’s fine, as long as publicity isn’t the motivation. It’s safe to assume that isn’t optimal for a projects success (Satoshi understood this). Not sure where you got the idea that the inverse of that was beneficial to such a project. I’ve seen first hand where it becomes a problem.

I’m not aware of many examples of starry-eyed divas achieving great results. Usually you hear about them but only because they are exceptional cases, not the norm. It’s a matter of practicality and not virtue (to say otherwise is purely a straw man argument).

JoshCole3y ago

> to say otherwise is purely a straw man argument

This is really overconfident.

That publicity isn't causally connected to success is belied by the existence of the advertising industry. While generally refuting across industries, it is worth noting that the most dominant AI company - Google - happens to be in this industry. They are explicitly known - having publicity for - their generous compensation packages. This is because of a causal model of talent attraction.

Success is obviously causally connected to publicity and the idea that it isn't isn't well supported by the evidence. Contrary to your assertion, it was not a safe assumption. Your appeal to Satoshi is an appeal to authority, not a causal model of its shielding off from project impacts.

1 more reply

strohwueste3y ago

The summary includes a dangerous thought: For example: why does north Korea develop a nuclear bomb is not important, just that they do. But only they why makes it problematic.

idiotsecant3y ago

I'm not sure who was advocating for North Korea making nuclear weapons in this exchange.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse