Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | advael's commentslogin

Kinda, yea. I've never been able to afford to fully prioritize values-alignment in my work, but it is something I care about, and building anything proprietary and US-controlled feels increasingly bad, because even if a company's mission isn't evil, the state has demonstrated a strong willingness to force their hand if they can be useful to them at all, and punish them arbitrarily if they do anything that the ruling party dislikes. I do have bills to pay, but if you can meet my relatively (as tech workers go) modest needs and have a real plan to make something that enables rather than impedes digital sovereignty, I'd be interested in hearing what I could do to help

It's crazy how all these tech CEOs develop the same sense of ethics that seeks to make the foundation of open research and development that made their efforts possible and may threaten their market position illegal in the name of safety against nebulously-defined risks


I get that there's a lot of loud nonsense flying around about AI, both positive and negative, and I echo the sentiment that people should have some damn perspective when talking to FOSS maintainers, but I think writing a bunch of AI-assisted code that causes regressions and then responding to that by throwing out a strawman about how critics (with PhDs no less!) are telling him these things can't do anything at all and can't possibly understand how literally everything has fundamentally changed in the last few months sounds way more like a guy who has a motivated (and understandable - he's retired ffs) reason to... a little bit buy into the hype

I think he makes a lot of good points here, but also think that kind of statement is unlikely to assuage the real concerns of people using the software. I think people are more likely to fork rsync now rather than rely on a more diverged earlier alternative implementation though


I'm confused about why you believe this contrasts with what the above poster said. You've described a bunch of practical reasons why this is legally expedient and also at least one that seems to contrast with your own concept of personhood


Yes, it does conflict with my own concept of personhood. I forgot to add that to my comment.

I was trying to show that it is not "merely a legal expedient", that corporate personhood had a specific purpose, and that it differed from a real person. I think that the confusion about legal personhood in corporations comes from how lawyers explain its existence. A couple of lawyers I've had explained it as, it's just like a person in the law, except where it's different.

The problem is that we haven't created a clear enough distinction between a natural person and a legal person. In many cases, corporations have rights but not the responsibility. For example, they have speech rights, but they don't go to jail when the corporation commits a crime. The judicial inequalities between ordinary people and rich people are even greater between natural persons and corporations.


Yea, I mean, I think the reason people balk at corporate personhood are to do with both the iniquities committed by corporate actors and the fact that personhood is a really confusing model for all this

A model that treats what effectively amounts to a body of assets united by a charter as equivalent to a person - except when it isn't - is inherently confusing because these are not at all similar kinds of entities. While it's clear that this model has a purpose, I think people are right to point out that the equivalence is drawn by rather stilted logic and even more right to question whether the consequences of this legal framing are desirable from their perspective


Citizens United did a lot to effectively legalize foreign influence as well, since the mechanism is opaque transfer of money

But regardless, most people's threat models should discount based on geographic and political distance. All else being equal, chinese surveillance is a bigger threat to you if you're in china than if you're in the us, and vice versa


> Citizens United did a lot to effectively legalize foreign influence as well, since the mechanism is opaque transfer of money

Here's hoping Hawaii blazes a path forward.

https://natlawreview.com/article/hawaii-governor-signs-first...


So the Honolulu Star-Observer (a corporation, or “artificial person”) only has those rights & privileges that it has been granted by the State of Hawaii?

This is going to end up being a nice little windfall for the attorneys and otherwise just clog the Federal court system.


"the day the law goes into effect, it strips each Hawaii entity of the powers it held the day before. The new law asserts that “[t]he creation and continued existence of a corporation is not a right but a conditional grant of legal status by the State and remains subject to complete withdrawal at any time. All powers previously granted to corporations under the laws of this State are revoked in their entirety."(TFA)

The meaning is pretty clear, don't try to influence politics in favor of the corporation or you will go away. Simple as.


Yeah, that’s clearly unconstitutional. The government can’t grant or withhold rights and privileges to, say, a newspaper publishing corporation, based on whether the newspaper content is what the government wants it to be.


Transfer of money from whom to whom?

Citizens United was about spending money on electioneering communications, and whether there was a First Amendment right to do so even if you’re associating in a corporation like the New York Times Company or Apple or Citizens United or the Sierra Club.


AFAICT hacker news is only slightly less positive on AI than the average tech industry gathering, which is still like two standard deviations more positive than any average gathering of random people in a city. I think the culture of silicon valley reads anything less than gushing hype as negativity right now, which is a weirdly polarized place to be, but the discourse around this technology is bizarre in general, being an absolute gamechanger that nonetheless still somehow feels quite oversold by its most ardent boosters, who are themselves a minority, but one with rather disproportionate voice and reach


Yea definitely, anyone with different preferences from you is just virtue signaling and/or trying to flex on you. Seems super reasonable to me


Anyone who thinks their preferences translate to their viewers is not being honest with themselves. Developers care if your site is static or not, general visitors and web users do not. There is a reason why static sites are not the norm. You're trying to shoehorn your opinion and generalize it when in reality that's not the true. Thanks for mockery!


So we've gone from "anyone who expresses this preference is a snob" to "actually what matters is the preferences of some imaginary audience, who I can also speak for"

Fascinating


What's fascinating is your lack of interest in discussing the subject. Have a good day.


In a way, we're doing the same maneuver to avoid discussing the subject, deflecting to base insults involving psychoanalysis of the speaker based on their stated position rather than object-level engagement with the position per se. I agree that it's not a move that seems to invite meaningful discussion. Seems worth considering if that's a priority you have


yall, the line is referencing codegen & docsgen & slopgen; people are putting shit into the ether that neither them nor anyone else is going to read but will just be imbibed by some other agent for some random purpose no one strictly knows.


Aye, and the comment above mine was engaging with the line in a way that begged for mockery nonetheless


For most of 2024, my main daily driver laptop was a little pink chinese laptop from 2019 I bought on amazon for roughly $200. It was marketed toward communication students. I put arch with cinnamon on it and it was pretty damn adequate for my needs, serviceable for browsing, watching videos, and even some dinky games, and of course fine for development, able to run tiny prototype code locally and ssh into more powerful servers (or cloud vms, whatever) when work was to be done for people paying for the compute

You really don't need that much computer for most things, but most operating systems shove a lot of extras on there by default. Leaving windows on the thing obviously would have been untenable, but even ubuntu would probably chug on such a device. I think if the supply crunch continues this logic will make sense to more and more people

I use a macbook for work now because I'm required to. It's just at every level an obnoxious operating system to work with, its permission model is a mess, every program on it is an ad and keeps trying to vie for my attention and I can't remove half of them. It bugs out often, including maxing out its application memory opening programs I didn't ask to open. It updates itself in an obnoxious way without my permission. It would be unusable if it didn't have a unix shell, and not everything on it is accessible from shell commands. Apple makes fundamentally incredible hardware, even if they're not perfect, but I would never intentionally buy something from them that didn't support getting out of their godawful software ecosystem


Smacks of collusion honestly. Maybe Microsoft offered them some kind of deal


I’ve always thought they were colluding with Nvidia, but then I suppose it could be both!


They've got a documented history of trying to strongarm everyone they can


I have to say, while I can't seem to escape constant articles about the drama of OpenAI and Anthropic, about Altman and Amodei and at various times other figures in these companies, I had to look up Liang Wenfang and frankly what I do find seems to suggest that there may be some upsides to China's lower relative deference to CEOs than the US


You can't escape constant articles about the drama of OpenAI and Anthropic because you live in a country with a free press. Chinese journalists generally do not perform critical investigations of things unless they're sure the Party wants those things investigated and criticized.


I can't currently completely describe the US as a country with a free press, but I do speak english and not (yet) mandarin, and a lot of the information I was able to find about the guy was in fact from the english-speaking press. I was more looking for "does anyone have any better info on this guy or was he just mentioned because he's another foundation model CEO?"


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: