>a longstanding and well documented skepticism towards the concept of intellectual property in general. “Information wants to be free” and all that.
Despite it's lofty rhetoric, OpenAI is neither free as in beer nor free as in speech. It is a gang of profit-motivated thieves. Efforts to pirate others works in order to personally profit is the antithesis of the "hacker community" approach to IP. (OpenAI appears to get quite upset when their own work is treated as they have treated everyone else's.[1])
They've already got away with,to quote Microsoft’s director of applied science, Brent Hecht, “the largest theft of labor in human history.” What's a few hacking incidents compared to that?
Clashing priorities. Generally speaking, workers want the business to work, i.e. to do the thing for which it was ostensibly created. (If they didn't want that, they would go work somewhere else.) Management wants the business to make money, which is increasingly poorly aligned with the business fulfilling it's ostensible purpose well.
Now, without money, the business stops working. But increasingly - by which I mean, every for-profit business for which I've worked in the last 25 years - what I see is management trading the long-term health of the business for short-term profit, trusting that they won't be the ones to face the consequences.
It's the officers of a ship who are only interest in getting this cargo to its destination (after which they'll move to a different ship or retire) no matter how badly the ship and its relationships are abused in the process vs. the crew, for whom the ship is their life and their home.
One of my main motivations as a leaf node in the org tree is to try to make my job the least annoying possible. Meaning spending time making sure things don't annoy me in the future (like cleaning up code, updating legacy systems, fixing bugs in ways that ensure they won't happen again).
Not necessarily so I can work less (afterall there is always work to do as a developer). But so I don't get annoyed.
Usually that ends up saving time for the company, but not always.
Not always, but overall having cleaner code with less bugs, more documentation and tests, is not just an annoyance to you. It's a money-maker for your employer as well in the long term by virtue of reducing burnout rate, decreasing onboarding time, making any improvement possible at all...
I get it, but my incentives are deeply misaligned with the company's in this regard, I prioritize things that annoy _me_ directly or indirectly (through not having to troubleshoot bugs made by other people).
On a ROI and prioritization metrics I put myself first, co-workers second, product third, company bottom-line fourth. Part of putting myself first is delivering things mandated by management (so, you know, I don't get fired) which skews to product and company bottom-line, but things I do of my own volition is definitely not going to the bottom-line/product.
I am lucky I am not time tracked aggressively and that my immediate superior lets us work on things out of our own volition. The fact that some of the stuff I do benefits the company indirectly is secondary to my motivation to do it.
> Generally speaking, workers want the business to work, i.e. to do the thing for which it was ostensibly created. (If they didn't want that, they would go work somewhere else.)
Or workers don't care where they work as long they get a pay cheque. If management wants to do stupid things sometimes it's not worth the fight as long as payroll is made.
Take a look at the long term results in the stock market. It's pretty hard to argue that all those successful companies, growing year after year, are actually choosing short term profit over long term success.
Survivor bias. Unsuccessful companies aren't on the stock market long term. And companies' life on the S&P 500 has been steadily dropping for decades. (Setting aside that the stock market largely is vibes-based greater-fool gambling.)
The intent of your comment is unclear to me, so I will ask you to clarify. And I will avoid any attempt at sarcasm from now on.
Great grandparent claimed (or at least strongly implied) that the labs have been saying that their creations might end the human race because the labs expect that saying such things will attract investment in the labs or purchases of their creations. I disputed that claim (using sarcasm).
Do you agree with me or disagree with me? (I honestly cannot tell.)
Would you say that the meme you quoted is sarcasm?
Do you believe that the meme you quoted has attracted investors or buyers?
I did read your comment correctly as a sarcastic way to make the point that, "no, potentially wiping out the human race is not a way to attract investors". I disagree.
I referenced the meme in order to show that yes, the zeitgeist does believe that the investor-class will destroy civilization for short-term profit.
And yes, I believe at least a subset of investors are short-sighted and willing to inflict immense harm for profit, and that claiming the ability to cause incalculable damage is a deliberate attempt to appeal to such people.
I believe the LLM-mania is in no small part driven by an ultimately fraudulent implicit pitch to investors that OpenAI etc will eventually Install Planetary Overlords, and that claiming "we could wipe out the human race" serves as marketing in furtherance of that implication.
Regardless of what the tech can or cannot do, the business model is clearly a scam by people who get high on thinking they're smarter than everyone else. You don't promise your investors "the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars" by accident. You do it because you're a fraud who thinks you're much cleverer than you actually are.
FDR? The American Monarch who served 4 terms in office? Good riddance, I'm glad we passed the amendment and don't have power hungry pseudo-kings that can serve four terms anymore.
>. blaming it on the boogyman does have the benefit that you don't actually have to address the concerns of those revolting peasants!
The establishment and its techbro enablers have messed up so badly that telling the torch people that the pitchfork people want to take their torches isn't working anymore. So now they're moving on to claiming that anyone with a torch or a pitchfork is secretly working for the next kingdom over.
reply