It’s essentially this “conundrum”:

Work somewhere for the next two years and be able to lead what would’ve been middle class life 20 years ago. But your actions will be destructive.

Or decline to do that and try to get by living a less comfortable life which destroys less in the end.

I think the choice is clear. Other people have loved and just because you don’t know them doesn’t mean it’s more “moral” to hurt them, which is what I am getting at when saying that one’s actions are harmful.

madlad

I don’t know. There’re limits to what can be considered an acceptable hustle imo. I get the whole American thing about not judging what someone works. but you gotta cut it at elbit systems or ICE.

Yes, right on. You won’t stop them by voting.

No, even this is a very bad idea. Ideally, no books are destroyed. A close relative of mine works as an archivist. They have tons of examples of how digitising and then destroying can create extra burdens. The data on hard drives or flash devices is too fragile.

I know that in disciplines such as math there are very often have books with less than 50 copies in circulation. The LLM companies buy maybe 2 of a given book which are subsequently destroyed with no backup data. You’re now at 48 in circulation, that is a significant reduction. Rinse and repeat a couple of million times and this starts to have a major influence on knowledge.

What’s perverse about it is that the data from the books is stored extremely badly within the models. So not only are you destroying sources, you are also necessarily falsifying them.

Pretty sure information that is hard to come by on the internet includes rare books.

I wouldn’t deny the damage caused by chatbot use, nor would I deny there being a culture of yes-men. These things are symptoms though, not causes. The question I think is important is “why are people this way?” and I don’t believe it can really be sufficiently answered by considering individual psychology or looking at small scale workplace dynamics.

The US government, federal and local, is much better at unifying data streams at this point time than it ever was. Flock came to fill the hole. Of course you’re going to get yes-men when such a big opportunity presents itself.

Arms manufacturing is also deeply unpopular. Arms manufacturers know this. They still do what they are doing fully aware about every implication, no culture of yes men needed in my opinion.

the people

Who exactly is “the people”? What constitutes “the people”? Aren’t the bosses part of “the people”?

the government

Are they not the government?

Arrogance has little to do with making these strategic considerations. If anything arrogance is a strategy that comes from dealing with things like backlash etc. The cause is not arrogant people, or people lacking self awareness because of arrogance. It’s simple economics in a way.

Yes. I think it’s dangerous to say “they are just crazy”

Democracy hasn’t been authentic for decades. It’s literally theater now.

I regard most voting as giving your okay to have decisions made for you and not by you. The owning classes wouldn’t OK their democracy shpiel if it didn’t play a vital role in sustaining the system at this point. It’s as if they’re trying to say “oh, just go to the voting booth. We are one people and we are totally not divided through opposing interests. My interests are totally your interests, now go and vote for the candidate that managed to receive enough funds to compete, which is btw everyone on the ballot”

I don’t think voting is terrible, on Wikipedia it seems to work quite well (and is not overused) because there is no real social stratification on that site like in the real world and everyone is united in the goal of creating a decent, stable source of knowledge. But a lot of democracy, even many direct forms of it, have shown themselves to be tools to legitimate state terrorism and to condition popular support from the people most negatively affected by present political decisions.

Here is a semi decent video about the futility of the whole thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM_AFv5Z7qI

Best believe this backlash is already factored into Flock’s equations

I believe this is completely incorrect. This idea of a power struggle concerning successors being of super high importance reduces the problem down to individuals. Regimes don’t fail because of small skirmishes, or because of a leader dying.

One person passes, the next one fills their role.

You sower of doubt!