So you're not allowed to own a company whose share is worth more than $1b? So everyone would cease productivity after that point because you'd essentially be working for free. Even worse, you have downside.
Suppose you own 10% of a company worth $10b and you love grinding so you keep working, grow it to $20b and your net worth is now $2b on paper so you have to give up 5% to the government, leaving you with 5%, bringing you down to $1b cap. Now the company drops back down to $10b and you now have $500m.
Bezos would have retired when Amazon was worth ~4-5b. But according to the kind of people that want this kind of cap, Amazon would just continue to grow to 50x over the next 25 years just through inertia. Because it's totally normal for a book retailer to 50x over 25 years.
A person can have an ownership share of $1B and not own the entire company if the entire company is worth more than $1B. For instance, if you own 1% of a company that's worth $100b, the company isn't "in the hands of a single person".
But even still you're saying that one person cannot create a $1B company which would mean a lot fewer $1B get created. Which under "big company bad" mentality, sure maybe it's a good thing. But that's obviously an insane position to take
Most uberwealthy aren't doing it for the extra money. And if they are, I think it's fine if they call it quits early. There are plenty more people who could be rich if Bezos/AMZN didn't suck all the air out of the room.
Right, because it's totally normal for an online book retailer to grow to $2.5t company. It was just coincidental that Bezos was involved. Plenty of companies grow at this pace for this long.
I honestly haven't done enough thinking on it, but it doesn't strike me a priori as ridiculous to limit people's ownership of these nation-sized companies, and to possibly limit the size of the company as well
If it was illegal for someone to own enough Amazon stock that they had a net worth of larger than some limit you think is reasonable, then either the government would own and run every major corporation, or those corporations (like Amazon) simply wouldn't exist. I don't think I or ordinary non-rich people in general are better off in that world.
Who's talking about the government? The most obvious natural owners of a company to me are the employees, who are actually the ones responsible for its success.
It makes no sense if you reason backward from "I should be allowed to have infinite dollars" as a premise. You simply can't do enough work to create a billion dollars[1]. It is just not physically possible to create that much value through sheer effort, nor is it even possible to keep that much value stored anywhere you can physically defend yourself. We're not talking about some chest of gold you keep in a bedroom closet in your very big house. It's so much more than that. Every billionaire is a beneficiary of a large organization of hundreds, usually thousands of people, that they've managed to put themselves at the top of or make a direct beneficiary of, or owns a special kind of currency that the markets have inflated to a valuation. Similarly, defending the integrity of a sprawling set of assets like that takes a virtual army of security, even if it's just the stock certificates you supposedly have in your name.
And I reject the premise that there isn't a limit on ownership. Ownership is a social construct. Ownership requires a functioning justice system and police force to maintain. Both of said things are collectively agreed upon social contracts that absolutely are negotiated. If you disagree, then by all means, build a moat around your island with a trillion gold bars and man it with automated sentry guns. No one does that because we've negotiated a system that actively helps wealthy people maintain their wealth and defends them against pitchforks, which have a nasty habit of turning up when said justice and organization breaks down and leads to anarchy.
Don't want anarchy where rich people a lynched by mobs? Well, yeah, that's why we negotiate limits. I'm saying the social contract just doesn't let you have more than a billion dollars.
[1] And incidentally, one cannot even enjoy that much wealth, even if they dedicated themselves to it! The kind of enjoyments that us regular people enjoy, like hockey games and surf trips, wouldn't even put a dent in a billion dollars, even if done for a lifetime. It's absurd that we think hundred million dollar yachts and private jets for the lucky ones are a birthright of our system or something. Because that's what we're really talking about--obscene wealth, not just living comfortably.
You can't individually do enough work to do much of anything we take for granted in our modern era but you can design and build systems, mechanical and social, to do that work. A corporation is such a system often put in motion and helmed by a single person for a significant portion of its existence. It accumulates many people and a lot of capital along the way by means of exchange, cash for goods and services rendered, physical capital in exchange for cash or debt and people's work in exchange for wages. Those people don't own the corporation unless they are given or purchase stock in it. They have already been paid for their input. Expecting otherwise is like expecting to use my lawn for your picnic or vegetable garden if I pay you to mow it twice a week.
These people get wealthy by making a pyramid-shaped apparatus that funnels the actual productive output of their employees up to them.
> like expecting to use my lawn for your picnic or vegetable garden if I pay you to mow it twice a week.
The analogy is flawed. It'd be more apt if you were selling grass clippings and they were paid to run the business of growing and cutting the grass. If you just own the land and call the shots, then sure, you're doing work too, but ultimately the resource that is of value to other people is primarily produced by the work of others. You've created an apparatus and put in work, and have earned (in some sense) compensation for enabling that. That's what most people would agree is equitable. But now we have corporations and stock; that adds a whole other dimension to this where you have a side hustle of selling future revenues in the form of stock on the open market, but retain privileged stock for yourself. The price of that stock goes up, you get disproportionately rewarded for that price increase. But even worse, when the market has a lot of money available for speculation, it can inflate the price of the stock far beyond what your employees can supply in terms of grass clippings (inflated price/earnings ratio). Your employees get zero of that inflated speculation bubble, but are absolutely the underlying value. In today's hyper growth world, the disconnection between revenue, growth, and valuations is worse than ever. Billionaires exist in this super-inflated valuation bubble that is completely disconnected from the grass clippings business.
Your employees are not barred from and often do get a piece of that speculation if they receive shares or choose to buy them. If they aren't willing to buy stock in the company they work for then how does that square with the idea that they should in some other way own more of the profit the company produces? i.e. if they choose to only put in the required labour in exchange for pay what claim do they have on that secondary market when they haven't participated in it?
A business selling grass clippings is a tortured metaphor, just use something sensible like farming. Say I buy land, pay for it to be cleared or clear it myself, buy farm machinery to work it, seed to plant it, arrange to sell it and deal with all of the business overhead of taxes, surveying, planning permissions, records, fees, etc. and maybe I even do some labour at the start to get it running before hiring others. Once I've hired other people and I'm paying them for the work they're doing, which they agreed to as a fair exchange, then what additional claim do they have on the profit I'm making from selling turnips or whatever? Why do you think they should be able to claim more if turnip prices skyrocket? Worse, what claim do they have if turnip futures go through the roof (if I had also speculated on them)?
You're talking millionaire problems and I'm talking billionaire problems. You're not getting to the billionaire class through any self-started farming business.
Billionaires are sitting in board rooms paying millionaires to deal with all that bullshit why they are just trading stocks left and right and play shell games with businesses. They're at a completely different level of capital class and wouldn't touch a blade of grass.
It doesn't really matter what the business is, farming was an example but if you need a concrete example of a billionaire that started as a farmer and built his fortune in agriculture and ag related business then look to Harry Stine[0]
There are plenty of other billionaires that started as small business owners putting in their own work. They became billionaires by successfully managing their business and scaling, expanding and pivoting it. There are also ones who derive their wealth strictly from investing or purchasing other businesses, maybe that doesn't seem like work or seems unfair for some reason but you can't just take a random person and hand them millions of dollars and expect them to turn that into a billion dollars. Most would go bankrupt if they tried, smarter ones would just be low risk millionaires living off interest or broadly diversified investment returns. To me, those ones would be the only people I'd say aren't really earning their money but if it's their money then it's their choice what they do with it.
Design is work, and designing any of the technologies that underpin industrialized societies is also the shared work of many many people. There are specifications like 5G or BLE or browser compatibility that no single person understands, let alone could've written.
The average working software engineer contributes far more knowledge to society than their billionaire boss who is worth 1000x more with the principal contribution of "being the specialest boy".
Once someone has a billion dollars do we really want them to continue accruing more wealth (power)? Isn't billion dollar people and companies unduly influencing our government the source of many of our problems?
You don't "have" a billion dollars, you created a billion dollars. Wealth is created. If Amazon stopped in 1998, it's not like the $2.5t Amazon is worth today would be distributed across Barnes and Noble, Pets.com and other retailers. Maybe some of it, but it's likely that the world would just be ~$2.5t poorer, likely more since AWS is the backbone of much of the online economy.
I do wonder what your economic philosophy is. It seems to assume that money's existence is its own societal good. I would argue that resources are finite so 2.5trillion is not new money but a representative part of a ratio of resources allocated. Ie, every one else got 2.5 trillion units poorer
I would say the millions of people working at Amazon over the years is what made 99.9999% of that value. Capitalism just lets a single person take the value of their labor.
"it's not like the $2.5t Amazon is worth today would be distributed across Barnes and Noble, Pets.com and other retailers" I'm not sure how you get to this conclusion, it seems sort obvious to me that it would. It's literally why businesses go out of business from competition - someone else is providing the services in their place. Instead of AWS, Azure and Google's cloud offers would likely be significantly more widespread/valuable.
What creates wealth? Mining raw materials? Work? Ideas? Services? Do you think any billionaire has created this wealth in these ways? No, they "create" a billion dollars by creating not value, but valuation. If it's a public company, they issue stock, which people buy for money. In the open market, the price of the stock goes up. Their valuation goes up. Their currency goes up.
Billionaires become billionaires by creating indirections of wealth. They create currencies. Like bankers, they create wealth by lending money they don't have. Those stock certificates are a currency, and trading the currency on the open market pumps up its valuation. Who buys it? People who think they too can make money off it in the future. Who pays them back? Maybe with dividends? Who makes those dividends? Who creates revenue? Mostly the organization they create.
There aren't words you say sitting around your desk that will create a billion dollars. But the desks they sit at, they can say words and a billion dollars are "created." I think that's what you don't want to admit. Their decisions are just amplified by a huge apparatus that they sit at, and the market scrambling to snip off a little profit by trading their stock in the future.
Sure they have businesses and things, but holy cow, we lionize the words they say around desks like it's some kind of magic holiness. I just don't get it.
Seems pretty evident that once you get beyond that point you stop considering regular people fully human, and start doing crazy things like threatening to destroy entire civilizations or buying and selling children.
> So you're not allowed to own a company whose share is worth more than $1b? So everyone would cease productivity after that point because you'd essentially be working for free.
Or, you know, pay your employees better¹. You want more money? Help other people earn more, get your rich friends on it, raise the median. Then you can earn more. And on a multiplier! The more you give everyone else, the more you can raise your cap.
¹ Seeing as we’re talking Bezos, not exploiting people to the point they have to pee in bottles and work next to dead collapsed coworkers would already but an improvement.
> Toy sales among adult-only households have now outpaced households with children for toy sales, growing 16% through June, according to market research group Circana, equivalent to 55% of total toy industry receipts. Toy sales among all adults are growing 25%, only slightly behind the teen group at 33%. Together, teens and adults generated nearly 60% of the industry’s incremental dollar gains in the first half, Circana said.
put 'good for the world' in quotes because obviously it's not
A more neutral headline would be: OpenAI Is Enlisting Influencers to Promote Its Public Image.
The rest of the article reads like anti-AI slop. For instance:
> The company isn't asking influencers to assuage fears that a rogue AI could destroy humanity.
It is weird how prominent anti-AI sentiment is online and in media. It's by far the most popular and fastest growing technology in the world. So presumably people have a general favorable impression of the technology as they're engaging with the product and many are paying for it. And I don't buy that it's being jammed down the throats by most employers. Sometimes maybe, but I see the reverse, where people WANT to use frontier models and are being prevented through archaic security hoops.
The big question is who is funding the influencer army to gaslight people into thinking AI/data centers will somehow end the world?
> It is weird how prominent anti-AI sentiment is online and in media. It's by far the most popular and fastest growing technology in the world. So presumably people have a general favorable impression of the technology as they're engaging with the product and many are paying for it
It is popular because it’s useful but people still have unfavorable attitudes towards it in polls. It’s like Amazon. We use Amazon cuz it’s convenient but do we like the way Bezos treats his employees?
> put 'good for the world' in quotes because obviously it's not
It's in quotes because it appears to be an specific phrase used by a campaign pitch (supposedly).
It's different from normal advertising of a commercial product which obviously will call their product "good", but "good for the world" implies something deeper.
> So presumably people have a general favorable impression of the technology as they're engaging with the product and many are paying for it.
That's not implied by engagement. It's possible to use the advantage AI gives you in a competitive landscape while still fearing the future it will bring.
It's clear that people are using it for personal reasons
> The Brookings Institution / AmeriSpeak Survey: A nationwide survey found that 57% of Americans use generative AI for personal tasks (such as web browsing, daily use, or information searches), while only 21% report using it in a professional or work role.
Is there "competitive" reasons to have an AI girlfriend? There is an implied preference that you like the technology by using it by choice and you don't think it will end civilization. You may tell pollsters you're worried but it's the same people telling pollsters sea levels are rising while investing in beach front real estate. Meaningless.
It’s being jammed into products where it’s not wanted. I use AI every day with good results, but I do not want it in my browser, my OS, my text editor, or AI summaries in my search engine. I want it in a separate web app where I can use it or not.
So am I pro- or anti- AI? Both. It depends what it is.
>And I don't buy that it's being jammed down the throats by most employers. Sometimes maybe, but I see the reverse, where people WANT to use frontier models and are being prevented through archaic security hoops.
I can say everyone I know in software is both forced to use AI and hates it, even if they would have used ai otherwise. With one exception of someone who does less software than infrastructure and he complains about his coworkers bad (but voluntary) ai code. I wonder what your industry is?
> It's by far the most popular and fastest growing technology in the world. So presumably people have a general favorable impression of the technology as they're engaging with the product and many are paying for it.
This in itself is not an argument. British Opium was selling like hotcakes in China, so surely people people must have had a general favorable impression if they're engaging with the product and many are paying for it?
> The big question is who is funding the influencer army to gaslight people into thinking AI/data centers will somehow end the world?
It was discussed a while ago on HN, with a more well known source, that I cannot find right now, but on a quick DDG search this is a quick article I could conjure.
> The big question is who is funding the influencer army to gaslight people into thinking AI/data centers will somehow end the world?
The companies are doing this themselves in a (stupid) attempt to do regulatory capture/ set up a cartel. Dario Amodei recently published an essay pushing this idea.
> And I don't buy that it's being jammed down the throats by most employers. Sometimes maybe, but I see the reverse, where people WANT to use frontier models and are being prevented through archaic security hoops.
What is N here? 1?
> It is weird how prominent anti-AI sentiment is online and in media. It's by far the most popular and fastest growing technology in the world.
Is it though? Do we actually know that? Is it growing faster than facebook did or google search? Is it even possible to measure when some of the "adoption" is probably people triggering it incidentally (e.g. AI mode in google search shouldn't count as adoption here).
People are worried about it because it is a highly disruptive technology with unproven ROI for businesses as of yet (restricting claims to LLMs here). It has a lot of negative potential side effects for many different groups of people. The media is reflecting these viewpoints. If there's any astroturfing going on, it's from the pro LLM camp.
I have to use it at work; it is helpful; i don't like it.
It's a red queens race: not only for the building of "true" AGI, but also for us plebes. If we don't use it, we will be surpassed by plebes who do. None of us agreed to any level of this arrangement, but all will be profoundly impacted.
I agree, but there's also a whole domestic "AI doom industry". The pipeline from AI researcher to guest on popular podcasts promoting your stop-AI-from-killing-us startup/"non-profit" is less than a year.
> The big question is who is funding the influencer army to gaslight people into thinking AI/data centers will somehow end the world?
It may be a difficult concept for an astroturfer to understand, but people are activists for free. If you have found any anti-AI financiers, please share them so I can apply. Of course you already know there are none.
Loving or caring for someone is not giving their addiction a Carte Blanche, it can often be to allow them access to treatment and a path out of their situation.
They can access treatment. There are a lot of options. The question is should we force treatment at some point.
Use the veil of ignorance to answer that.
Suppose your loved one was one of these afflicted individuals literally killing themselves on the street. Would you want to force them to get clean or would you want to make their lives "easier" by giving them some "harm-reduction" that will allow them to persist in their zombie state?
Or what if you were in the grips of this lifestyle. Would you want someone to force you to get help or facilitate you killing yourself?
I don't know what the "tenderloin" refers to, but I guess it is a part of a US city.
That's generally the point I am trying to make. By letting these people suffer from addiction and homelessness, not offering good medical and social care, you are not caring or loving them, which is a kind of cruelty.
FWIW if you search "tenderloin city" the answer appears immediately.
It's a big internet, sometimes people will mention neighborhoods or customs you're unfamiliar with. In my experience, the polite thing is usually to take 3s to make the Google.
This is the problem with context and language and assumptions and algorithms. Even with that I get two restaurants and one Wikipedia article on meat before I get anything resembling a city district in my search results.
No, I was asking what you think should be done. I have legitimately talked to many people to whom that is the answer and I find their views dispicable.
Can we really blame individuals when we have recorded, legally admissable evidence of corporations knowingly pushing the over-perscription of extremely addictive drugs while claiming they are safe and non-addictive?
Yes. I don't think the typical homeless drug user is relying on pharma provided research on the substances they're ingesting when deciding to pick up the habit in the first place.
I think the real reason is basic collusion. They're burning tens of billions training new models. It's a very competitive space. They know that the companies capable of frontier models is limited so if they can all get together and agree to slow down it gives them more time to make money from inference.
So you're using the IDE for review? The main features you need are around simple things like reading files, tracking git changes, things like that?
That's a small subset of the functionality you would need if you're actually authoring code. So the IDE maybe be more valuable, but the feature set you need is actually much smaller and can probably be redesigned given your narrow workflow.
Sure, but my IDE does these simple things very well.
Just some important things off the top of my head that I use daily:
* Instantly jumping between definitions and usages
* Folding and unfolding code blocks
* Quick overview of structures in files
* Database access, so I can browse the data and the code at the same time
Also, sometimes I just want to quickly refactor/rename some variable across all its usages or whatever. It's just quicker to do it in the IDE with a simple keyboard shortcut, rather than prompting an agent "rename oldName to newName".
My problem with this book is that it relies heavily on priming studies. The idea is that you "primed" them for some set of behaviors.
Here's an example of a study that supposedly supports this. Participants held a pen in their mouth in one of two ways:
- Between the teeth, without touching the lips. This activates some of the muscles used in smiling.
- Between the lips, without using the teeth. This inhibits those smile-related muscles.
If you think that's stupid and reading into this is foolish it's because it is. A lot of the arguments in this book are built in a delicate set of assumptions that are supported by equally ridiculous and contrived experiments, many of which cannot be reproduced.
I've heard people that work/worked with Musk that say he works a lot and is very knowledgeable about technical matters. I have never found someone that worked with him or knows him personally that contradicts this. So this idea that Musk just got lucky in the 7 companies he founded and he's just a bozo who happened to trip upon some new rocket designs is just insane.
> So this idea that Musk just got lucky in the 7 companies he founded and he's just a bozo who happened to trip upon some new rocket designs is just insane
I don't know who's saying that. Of course he's smart, but the amount of hours he works each day is almost certainly exaggerated to maintain this "Tony Stark-like genius narrative" he needs to keep the money coming in.
Elon knows how to hire, how to raise money, and how to profit from govt subsidies. That doesn't mean he's this lone genius who works himself to death, and that's a very unlikely story.
> OBSERVATION: There are zero examples of any intelligent species which is vastly more capable than another species, yet surrenders decision-making control over its own future to the less-capable species.
This is just silly. AI isn't an intelligent species. It's a tool, it doesn't have autonomy or any motive apart from the one we enforce through reinforcement learning. That's like saying machines are "stronger" than humans, and obv they could kill us all so why would they not just take over.
Suppose you own 10% of a company worth $10b and you love grinding so you keep working, grow it to $20b and your net worth is now $2b on paper so you have to give up 5% to the government, leaving you with 5%, bringing you down to $1b cap. Now the company drops back down to $10b and you now have $500m.
Bezos would have retired when Amazon was worth ~4-5b. But according to the kind of people that want this kind of cap, Amazon would just continue to grow to 50x over the next 25 years just through inertia. Because it's totally normal for a book retailer to 50x over 25 years.
Makes no sense.
reply