Yeah, that's pretty much tailor-made to be the official resource for an experienced programmer to get an overview of C++ as it stands. Fairly slim book so it's approachable.
I've heard of human engineers who are like that. "10x", but it doesn't actually work with the environment it needs to work in. But they sure got it to "feature complete" fast. The problem is, that's a long way from "actually done".
Sorry, what's wild about it? It's a pretty standard observation that defense in depth beats "here's a silver bullet to solve X". Is there something about gaming (or preventing cheating in gaming) that makes that not true?
What makes you think that I think kernel AC is a silver bullet? I’ve said in pretty much every comment here that cheating is an arms race and there’s no silver bullet.
Taking the defence in depth argument - kernel AC is another layer that helps and makes it more difficult for the cheaters. But some defences are more crucial than others - you don’t use MD5 anymore for security because it’s just broken. IMO, the same can be said about user mode anti cheat.
With coding (by hand), there are two aspects of it. One is the pleasure of figuring out how to do things, and one is the pleasure of making something that didn't exist before. Building with AI gives you the second pleasure, but not the first.
Or maybe it still gives you the first, too. Maybe you get that from figuring out how to get the AI to produce the code you want, just like you got it from trying to get the compiler to produce the code you want.
Or maybe it depends on your personality and/or your view of your craft.
Anyway, the point is, people take pleasure in their work in different ways. Those who enjoy building with AI are probably not all lying. Some do enjoy it. And that is not a defect in them. It's fine for them to enjoy it. It's fine for you not to enjoy it.
Is it straightforward to get Congress to make it revenue neutral? And to keep it revenue neutral? I don't think so. Politicians find "free money for everybody" to be too easy a way of getting votes.
Community ownership does share across sectors if the community owns both sectors. Why would it not?
Also, you haven't really answered the point. You may be able to get this established. But how do you keep it established? How do you keep the elite ownership class from dismantling it? (Based on historically observed behavior, the default assumption is that they will try.) If you don't have a plan that accounts for that, you don't really have a workable plan.
I didn't say that tackling the elite class wasn't important.
But saying that the existence of an elite class implies regulatory capture is a step beyond that.
Regulatory capture is absolutely a problem. While one could advocate for eliminating the elite class (e.g. wealth taxes, confiscation, execution ... as you wish), I'd probably go for tightly controlled political donations & spending, combined with a strong anti-corruption culture (which has been severely damaged by, ahem, recent administrations).
I don't think anybody but those that are really close to the halls of power and have sufficient capital to engage in large scale lobbying is going to be able to achieve regulatory capture. So I suspect there is significant, maybe even perfect over lap between the groups that could achieve regulatory capture and the ones that actually do, and that outside of that group it is pointless to even try. You can get into the club by lucky accident, you stay in the club through regulatory capture.
Regulatory capture requires that laws (or regulations) are drafted that favor your interests. The only ways I am aware of for that to happen are:
(a) sufficient political donations/bribes to get lawmakers to draft suitable language themselves (or via their staff)
(b) a combination of political donations and a worldview on the part of lawmakers in which it is "just normal" for those affected by regulations to draft them, such that you yourself are able to draft the legislation.
There are levels of government where neither of these require incredible levels of wealth, I suspect.
Both could be stopped by limiting political donations and a political culture in which "the chemical industry writes its own rules" is self-evidently corrupt and/or non-sensical.
True, but the USA has institutionalized the power of money in politics to the point that this is now a reality: what would be called outright bribery elsewhere is called campaign donations, there are lobbyists who get to write the laws that favor their paymasters and in fact it has been argued that 'money is speech' (it doesn't get much more bizarre than that to me). What Musk did during the last elections would get you jail in some 3rd world countries, you know, where they take voting serious.
Whether any of these require incredible levels of wealth or not is moot, I think. The reason for that is that it only matters when 'lesser levels of wealth' come up against 'greater levels of wealth' and the latter will always win that confrontation.
If you can manage to believe in a system of 1 person 1 vote for just a bit longer, or maybe even 3 poor people 1 vote, then I think there is still plenty of space for "lesser levels of wealth" to overcome "greater levels of wealth". There are simpler more of us than there are of them.
OK, but the same response still applies. There still are plenty of arguments against UBI, and you still need to actually refute them rather than just dismiss them with "they're false or moot".
I’d agree with you in a debate, for sure, but I’m just stating my opinion. Of course, opinions are like assholes, everybody’s got one lol, so I’m not saying im necessarily right.
But I do think in the special case of self maintaining, self manufacturing, intelligent servitors, I think the only way we can hope to sustain an economy of any kind would be to redistribute the output of those machines significantly, or we would end up with a concentration of power around capital that utterly eliminates the economy as we presently understand it.
As for moot, I mean that in this case, you aren’t taking anyone’s work to benefit others, so the usual arguments of socialism or wealth redistribution don’t have the same basis in injustice. Ultimately, the production of pure automation springs directly from the resources of the earth, and the earth is everyones, so it makes sense to redistribute the production to a significant extent.
As for false, I mean that the “no one will do anything” and other claims about UBI destroying productivity have all been refuted in study after study, and in the societies that already practice UBI. In this way, UBI is very distinct from needs based welfare, which is often imagined to incentivize low production, since low productivity is actually a requirement to qualify.
Ubi causing runaway inflation is another example of a thoroughly refuted claim that is easily given the lie by looking at extant UBI systems.
UBI seems to work best when it significantly removes or even eliminates stressors of survival (basic housing and food, medical care) while leaving lots of room to aspire to greater success. Throw away the stick, but leave the carrot.
It’s basically mirroring what behaviorists find time after time, that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative reinforcement. Also, it makes people more willing to take risks like starting a business, getting an education, or having a family. All of which are positives for developed nations.
> But I do think in the special case of self maintaining, self manufacturing, intelligent servitors, I think the only way we can hope to sustain an economy of any kind would be to redistribute the output of those machines significantly, or we would end up with a concentration of power around capital that utterly eliminates the economy as we presently understand it.
That would definitely be true in the case of self maintaining, self manufacturing, intelligent servitors who can do everything. I'm not sure we would get that, even as the end state. (We're probably at about the end state of "electricity can do everything", and yet there's still large amounts of manual labor. It can't do everything.)
> Ultimately, the production of pure automation springs directly from the resources of the earth, and the earth is everyones, so it makes sense to redistribute the production to a significant extent.
Unfortunately, under current law, the earth is not everyones. Real estate and mineral rights are pretty well entrenched. (For that matter, so are national governments. Given that resources are not evenly distributed, that matters.)
So getting to your philosophical starting point would require a massive transformation of existing human society. (Of course, robots doing everything might have that effect...)
> Ubi causing runaway inflation is another example of a thoroughly refuted claim that is easily given the lie by looking at extant UBI systems.
What are your examples of "extant UBI systems"? And to what degree are they true UBI?
> That would definitely be true in the case of self maintaining, self manufacturing, intelligent servitors who can do everything.
I think we will see enough of “everything” to invalidate the current paradigm of economic function. Something like 80 percent of all activity that does not involve high-touch customer interaction where people will prefer the more personal feeling of another human over the superior technical performance of a robot.
>Unfortunately, under current law, the earth is not everyone’s. Real estate and mineral rights are pretty well entrenched.
This is true, but we also tax those holdings in acknowledgement of their communal nature. Ideally, ownership would revert to the best steward, but we all know how that works out in practice lol. The status quo is only possible because the state retains a monopoly of coercive force. If the economic model is undermined, this monopoly is among the first of casualties. So while I don’t disagree completely, I’d have to say that we end up in a sort of race condition problem if the state hesitates too long to assert communal right to autonomous production.
> What are your examples of "extant UBI systems"? And to what degree are they true UBI?
Unfortunately all “UBI” experiments or implementations are limited in scope, because there is always a time or geographical limit to their application. So “true” UBI, which would largely eliminate the leverage that increased local wealth would have against market forces, has never been tried. As a result, existing trials have possibly been contaminated because the gradient at the edge is a problem.
Additionally, UBI in our context would be applied in an economic desert scenario, which means that wealth would not be increasing in the mean.
As for examples, there have been a few, but I’m on the can staring at my phone and I’m way too lazy to go back and try to search up the several examples of UBI experiments, so I’ll just leave you with the one I’m most familiar with because I lived there; Alaska’s permanent fund dividend. At 1-2k per year per human, it is a pretty big infusion for many families. Once again I’m too lazy to dig right now, but there has been many investigations of it’s effects on the economy, and the net result was that prices went -down- dramatically in response to dividends in an effort to capture market share. I would not expect to see this effect though, in the scenario we are exploring - once again it’s a gradient effect, I believe.
> massive transformation of existing human society.
something like a 3rd industrial revolution? As someone who is innovating in the developing technology in the sector, I believe that we are in for a much more sudden and extreme shift than both of the previous Industrial revolutions combined, compressed into a couple of decades. The first two spanned about 120 years of disruptive change between the two of them.
reply