Art still requires technique, and technique takes practice. Words like "prodigy" and "virtuoso" are typically reserved for techniques which take a large amount of practice to get right, like playing a violin. (You would never call someone a kazoo prodigy, for example.)
The steelman argument is that super-intelligent AGI could allow any random person to build destructive technology, so companies on the path toward creating that ought to be very careful about alignment, safety and, indeed, access to weights.
The obvious assumed premise of this argument is that Anthropic are actually on the path toward creating super-intelligent AGI. Many people, including myself, are skeptical of this. (In fact I would go farther - in my opinion, cosplaying as though their AI is so intelligent that it's dangerous has become a marketing campaign for Anthropic, and their rhetoric around this topic should usually be taken with a grain of salt.)
Setting aside whether paying for store exclusives is right or wrong (personally I don't see anything wrong with it), what does that have to do with the Apple discussion? The problem with Apple is specifically that they use their dominant market position to force anti-competitive terms on other companies. Has Epic been bullying companies into accepting their deals? You can sell a game anywhere, Epic has no leverage in this respect.
yeah, I thought they were going to provide some sort of rationale as to why they've never implemented this. instead this post just basically goes "yeah, you guys have been asking for this feature for 10 years, and... it's a good idea! let's do it."
Imagine the panic inside Microsoft right now where they're all-in in "AI in everything, everywhere" and the results have been so bad that GitHub is being forced to finally let repo owners disable PRs to make it stop.
Honestly, it's not an area where there has been consensus on when we talk with maintainers. Some folks worry about that reducing the very nature of open source collaboration.
We've had the ability to temporarily disable PR's for a while for maintainers but we felt like it was time to look at this again and see what folks think.
> Some folks worry about that reducing the very nature of open source collaboration.
Collaboration on repos where the authors explicitly don't accept PRs and are going to auto close or ignore them? I don't get it - it's not like you're going to force opensource on anyone.
OP here, it might be a bit unfamiliar at first, but I think Tomo's syntax makes the type annotations really nice for functions that return functions: `func make_adder(amount:Int -> func(x:Int -> Int))` instead of `func make_adder(amount:Int) -> func(x:Int) -> Int`. The latter can be easily mistaken for a function that returns an integer since it starts with `func make_adder(` and ends with `) -> Int`, especially if you're not well-versed in currying. With Tomo's syntax, it's easier to see at a glance that `make_adder` returns a function without the need to add extra grouping parentheses for clarity. IMO, Tomo's syntax is also a bit more readable for lambdas when the return type is specified: `func(x:Int -> Int) x+1` vs `func(x:Int) -> Int x+1`
UBI does not mean you don't work, nor you can't earn a lot of money. It just means we don't let you starve if you don't work and we stop making you work out of fear of leaving you starve if you don't.
I'm a psychiatry resident and developper. I have never been paid for my dev work but have produced quite a lot on my free time (site: w.olicorne.org ). I would do psychiatry pretty much no matter how much I'm paid for it.
In my view the most productive people of every field are not incentivized by money and would do it anyway. UBI would free up time and cognitive load of the most productive people I believe. Following a 80/20 kinda rule.
Hence UBI here would mean that the dev would not *have to* monetize.
> In my view the most productive people of every field are not incentivized by money and would do it anyway.
The idea that money is not an effective incentive to drive behavior is wishful thinking. Even just among devs, even just among devs who truly love programming, most would be doing very different work, and working for different organizations (or none at all) if money weren't the driver.
> Hence UBI here would mean that the dev would not have to monetize.
Ok, but the dev might still want to monetize, and we're back to the original question.
> Even just among devs, even just among devs who truly love programming, most would be doing very different work, and working for different organizations (or none at all) if money weren't the driver.
Somehow I can imagine that a world where a the brightest minds of a generation didn't spend their prime optimizing ad clicking wouldn't necessarily be a complete disaster.
Optimizing ad clicking is profitable and the thing that would [partially] pay for UBI. That stops happening and money/value stop being created. The market is not 0 sum.
It's good to talk about UBI, but people taking it seriously have no idea how to fund it.
> Ok, but the dev might still want to monetize, and we're back to the original question.
It's alright. Those who would like to monetize can. There are others who wouldn't and UBI would utilize that surplus talent, which otherwise had to perform tasks they weren't skilled at to earn a living.
> most would be doing very different work, and working for different organizations (or none at all) if money weren't the driver.
With UBI I wouldn't be surprised if those would be even more productive doing something else they want. And others who couldn't do the CS curiculum even though they would have loved to because they had to find a job quickly would plausibly be at their place instead.
I really view UBI as something that puts oil in the society: people have less friction to be at the spot they're better at. People who want to do nothing will not slow us down anymore. And jobs that nobody wants to do would finally be paid by how much they suck instead of how much money your parents had to educate you.
> Ok, but the dev might still want to monetize, and we're back to the original question
I don't really see the issue. We're far from having shortage of ways to make people pay: ads, paywall, soft paywall, begging, rate limits. What's the issue with those? I certainly don't like them as a user and as a member of society but am fine with people doing that.
Especially with UBI in place: if the dev is putting a paywall, they have to compete with people that have plausibly much more freedom of time and mind to allocate to another free foss project. So in the end it becomes less profitable to be adversarial against end users.
> And others who couldn't do the CS curiculum even though they would have loved to because they had to find a job quickly would plausibly be at their place instead.
Unfortunately, also wishful thinking. A particular kind of wishful thinking endemic to naturally highly curious, academic achievers (not a dig, I am one). But -- and if you don't understand this, spending some time teaching at universities makes it abundantly clear -- most of the world is nothing like this. They aren't being held back from their natural passions and curiosities by the demands of living. They would not suddenly flourish under UBI.
> With UBI I wouldn't be surprised if those would be even more productive doing something else they want.
For the people that do naturally love creating and are good at it, they might "even more productive" in one sense -- creating more stuff that they, personally, value. And personally I'd love to do that, but it doesn't maximize value across society. That's one of the main things money is. It's a constraint forcing the production of consensus value. In a world of infinite resources that ceases to matter, but we're still very far from that.
> People who want to do nothing will not slow us down anymore.
Who do you think is supporting them? Until we have robots taking care of everyone for free, support is still a cost levied on other humans.
I am aware that most of the world isn't like this. But I am also aware that there are many people who more than anything want to share things they made, have a positive impact etc. In other words : there are 10x engineers and 10x altruists and some are even both. I am convinced that they collectively could make basically unlimited progress on things we all agree on: less sick people, more happy people, less waste, better environment, etc. I'm sure you've seen some random genius on youtube who built things in their backyards that are normally only buildable by conglomerate with advanced logistics. I just want them to not have to worry about an algorithm and sponsors and accomodate spaced for them to worl together on things.
> it doesn't maximize value across society
Well you'd have to define "value" here. I am sure GDP would plummet because bullshit jobs would plummet. The current society is doing maybe a decent job at producing but a terrible job at making it "across society". We still have millions of people dying every year of very preventable causes just because of the lack lf coordination. I think this would be better if we had less noise in our daily lives caused by the system so inefficient that we have bullshit jobs.
> The idea that money is not an effective incentive to drive behavior is wishful thinking
It is obviously an incentive. But I think it's not an effective one and has many morally bad side effects.
I highly recommend taking a look at the work of Daniel Pink related to money as an incentive. See The Puzzle Of Motivation (~20min) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y
> It just means we don't let you starve if you don't work and we stop making you work out of fear of leaving you starve if you don't.
Seems inefficient to pay for everyone to have kitchens in their house and pay them cash to get ingredients to cook. Couldn't we just employ some of these people as cooks and have them make meals in a centralised kitchen in every neighbourhood? A bit like the British Restaurant idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Restaurant
- and historically in france where I'm from, when we started having freezer technology it first appeared in shared houses for the whole village. People would go there once a day to fetch what they needed and would eat it. Can't find english sources but it seems very efficient. A least much more than every one having a fridge. https://france3-regions.franceinfo.fr/pays-de-la-loire/mayen...
Don't you think that with UBI some people could flat out refuse to be squeezed by the supermarket owner and decide to make their own grocery association not motivated by greed and so less subject to inflation? I know of several projects like this where people give their own time for free to work in that low price supermarket. It's not even registered as a company but as a public benefit association. With UBI and inflation I have no doubt this kind of thing would pop up and limit inflation.
That's why it works, lol. Those already driven by the bet paying off still have their incentives, and those who would love to try something ... can! Because they don't have overdue bills to pay with extra interest.
For every 1 LLM applicant that this idea would deter, you would also deter 50 humans who simply don't feel like having to send a letter to apply to a job.
At least for me, I'd still rather mail a letter versus input all my personal details and job experience into yet another CRM with a crappy data entry interface.
"Thank you for uploading the PDF with all the information we need. Now, fill all that information in on this page that asks for 2 bits of information at a time and takes a minute to go to the next page. You are on page 1 of 50".
Discussions are pointless when the parties are talking past each other.
reply