8 ms·

As someone who belongs to “all of us”, i vote to not bail us out if shit hits the fan. No need to ask me when it happens, OK? No really, it’s nice of you but we

• spaceman_2020 2mo ago
  Replace you with AI, and when the AI math falls apart, use your tax money to bail out AI And they’ll get away with it too
  • stymaar 2mo ago
    This the proof that guillotine is useful, if not to be used, to make the elite behave in way that avoid suffering it.
    • viccis 2mo ago
      China's doing it
    • spaceman_2020 2mo ago
      They think they’re immune. Even after Luigi, they still think they’re immune
      • ManuelKiessling 2mo ago
        Well, I really wish that anyone, no matter their income level or job description, is immune against murder; or are we just throwing out civilization now?
        • edoceo 2mo ago
          It's of topic but, what if our current civilization is failing them? Like, of the system is broken and an individual acts to protect themselves or their family, the individual is still blamed. That's how revolution starts. And there are many revolutions that we (in USA) claim are good! Our own, from Britain, the French one. Of course others are bad (depending on where your vantage) It's just that, sometimes the murder is (retrospectively) justified. Like in a war, they're killing us so we kill them. But class war isn't fought with uniformed combatants. And, in USA at least, many of our politicians are bought quite blatantly. If they aren't serving the citizens perhaps they have thrown out civilization and the social contracts first? It's all quite complicated. In general though, murder bad and government should serve the poorest citizens forst, corporations last.
        • LtWorf 2mo ago
          Being denied medical care is murder as well.
      • UberFly 2mo ago
        As far-fetched as it sounds, I'd prefer elected officials and the justice system hold people accountable rather than psychotic murderers.
        • ben_w 2mo ago
          Likewise. I think it's a real pity that of the "four boxes of liberty", Musk has interfered with the first three: soap, Twitter; ballot, the lawsuits about million dollar rewards for voting; jury, selecting his jurisdiction, dismantling enforcement institutions via DOGE. On the plus side, it's only "interfered with" rather than "completely eliminated". Still, glad I have an ocean between me and the USA.
        • cryptonym 2mo ago
          Well... AGI by next month sounds more likely than what you are hoping for.
        • YeahThisIsMe 2mo ago
          Obviously that's preferable. What if they don't?
        • dofm 2mo ago
          So would those guys in the boats in the Caribbean and the girls in that Iranian school, but the purpose of a system is what it does.
          • thin_carapace 2mo ago
            based
        • surgical_fire 2mo ago
          Speaking hypothetically, that is preferable, yes. And the importance of the justice system working properly is that when it fails constantly and deliberately, many will come to the conclusion that the only option left is murder.
        • dns_snek 2mo ago
      • senordevnyc 2mo ago
        [flagged]
      • kishkash 2mo ago
        [dead]
    • Lerc 2mo ago
      The guillotine requires being in control of the situation. It can only be used by those with the power to act with impunity. It's not fighting against tyrants, it's a declaration of an intention to be the next tyrants.
      • thin_carapace 2mo ago
        [flagged]
        • Lerc 2mo ago
          I wrote that comment entirely by myself, on my phone while waiting for a souvlaki. Perhaps the things that you consider AI tells are simply a use of language from someone in country with a different education system. I can't really judge how I might personally benefit from the current direction because I am uncertain what that direction is, and indeed if it will be sustained. If you are trying to allege that I have some personal affiliation to an organisation where I might benefit more than any average member of the public, then I must disappoint you. I work on my own projects, I sometimes make money from games that I make. I do not wish for a hypercapitalist dystopia where a company could train a model on work for hire content and then forever churn out content that they assert ownership of. I don't want the suppression of ideas caused by others asserting that because they had an idea, they own it and can dictate who gets to use it. I also do not wish for another reign of terror. I don't think violence will make the world better, and I don't think disaffected chique will either. I advocate identifying problems, suggesting solutions to the problems and working with people to reach consensus to apply those solutions. I assume that humans are fundamentally good and in the absence of religion can generally be reasoned with. Even those who do things you disagree with probably are doing what they think is best. I may be wrong about the goodness of humanity, but it does not matter, If it exists it's worth working with. If it does not exist, it is not worth saving. I choose to assume that it exists on the chance that it might.
          • thin_carapace 2mo ago
            believing in the inherent good of humanity does somewhat justify your perspective, may life allow you to continue believing this way and may your pursuits be productive. I would recommend not to marginalize yourself, this action is tantamount to painting targets on your back for bad actors to aim at. corporations and governments are currently acting violently against the populace, a correspondingly heavy handed response is required if the populace does not wish to become soylent green. note that I have not explicitly advocated violent behaviour - rather I suggest that if our intelligence is not used against this tide, it may as well be part of the wave. thanks for your thoughtful response
  • zkmon 2mo ago
    Because AI is "too big to fail".
    • spaceman_2020 2mo ago
      Wild that we all lived exactly the same way before AI Really changed so little in my life. I just use chatgpt instead of Google search now It's being marketed as some ground breaking revolutionary change when all it is is a better widget Remove it and the worst that will happen is that I'll go back to writing my emails and my code by hand - something I've done for the last 20 years anyway
      • donkey_brains 2mo ago
        No kidding. Except we won’t even have to do that; we can just run open-source frontier models. These companies are hosed.
  • laughing_man 2mo ago
    How are they going to use my tax money if I stop working and don't pay taxes?
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• laughing_man 2mo ago
  The problem is if large banks fail they take everyone else with them. We should have dealt with this in 2009, but for some reason it didn't happen. But money talks, I guess.
  • fancyfredbot 2mo ago
    Things have changed since 2009. It would be private credit which fails this time, not the banks. Private credit is not supposed to be systemically important and it's not supposed to need bailing out. Maybe we'll find out how true that is in practice.
    • spwa4 2mo ago
      Why would you think that? You think pension funds and governments didn't invest this time? Because that's the problem, governments either investing everyone's money directly (to fund their own loans and expenditures, or should I say fund their own expenses using pension money without admitting that's what they're doing to pensioners) or indirectly force investments (you'll find pension funds worldwide are legally only allowed to invest in loans to the government and specific things the government allows (like politicians' charities). "For safety", of course, no other motivations there) We can check if governments went back to their own tricks or not after 2008. What were the interest rates after 2008? Quick check ... yep, they went back to the old tricks. When "shit hits the fan". Either governments really cut spending, leave pensioners without income and see their new loan interest spike to 10%+ (if they're lucky) ... OR they do a massive cash injection saving the banks, and increase spending. Which would you chose? It doesn't even matter. If you were the government and chose the first option, you would quickly find suddenly everyone across the political spectrum uniting to depose you. A decent chunk of people would literally not have any other choice but to do that. (of course, as per usual governments aren't behaving "correctly" according to economic theory. If you take the old "government as spender of last resort" governments should have radically cut spending in the last 10 years, because there was no need for extra spending. If you take the new "government invests pensions", then of course government spending needs to be investment. In other words, governments only allowed to spend like a normal investor, expecting and demanding a return. Ie. no social spending increases. In practice governments increased spending at any cost, and so we're in trouble again) Oh and should I mention that for any other entity investing pension money in loans to yourself is a very unique thing in law. It is THE ONLY financial crime where corporate structures do not protect management. You're the worldwide president of ExxonMobil? Doesn't matter. You do with employee pension money what government does with it? (ie. loan it to yourself, in this case ExxonMobil). You go to jail. Directly and long-term. In America. In Spain. In Japan. In fucking Vatican city.
• superze 2mo ago
  Always remember kids. Socialism is bad, it's only good if we bail out banks with billions. While you lose your house, and your job, they get bonuses.
• joe_the_user 2mo ago
  Unfortunately, the votes for a regime of permanent bailouts were already in when Ben Barnacke made his famous speech proposing helicopters over cities if deflation reached a crisis level (though the Internet says Milton Friedman thought of this first). Some later observed "the helicopters only seem to go to Wall Street", which isn't surprising.
• dev_l1x_be 2mo ago
  Is there a party that supports no bail?
• DrScientist 2mo ago
  Money isn't lost per se, it's transferred. ie for every loser there is a winner. Obvious ones are those who can extract value from this companies now ( high salaries/bonus etc ), swapping worthless paper for real assets, Nvidia and their share holders etc. Investors who hold short positions etc.
  • mlrtime 2mo ago
    You are trying to define zero sum without saying it. The market is not zero sum, a loan isn't zero sum. There isn't a winner and loser.
    • DrScientist 2mo ago
      Why not? What am I missing. If you loan me 10 pounds and I simply keep it or spend it but refuse to pay you back - aren't I the winner and you the loser? Claiming that the market is a positive sum system, because I use that 10 pounds to invent something that changes world productivity is missing the fact that there is a constant stream of huge energy inputs from the sun - that's ultimately what allows the local entropy to decrease - not that you lent me 10 pounds.
      • orwin 2mo ago
        I borrow you 10 money i use to buy my chair-making tools. I make the chair, sell it 20 money, then pay you 12 money back for the service rendered. Basically money is supposed to be a tool that help us creating capital by exchanging goods.
        • DrScientist 2mo ago
          But aren't you confusing the means of exchange with the creation of value. The creation of value is me taking energy from the sun and converting that into a chair. You lending me money is you extracting value from artificially being a middleman. It would have been more efficient to write an IOU to the tool maker, make the chair and pay back the tool maker directly. Now sure that IOU isn't that fungible - however that highlights one of the absurdities ( if I understand it correctly ) of the current banking system where private banks are able to in effect issue IOU's on their own basis but put mine and your name on it as a guarantor - resulting in the public having to bail out banks when they over extend.
• xtiansimon 2mo ago
  > “As someone who belongs to “all of us”, i vote to not bail us out if shit hits the fan.” You have alighted onto an interesting topic: “bail out”. I believe a closely related word on the semiotic chain is “retreat”. I don’t feel that our culture would wish to “retreat” from AI. I know quite a few managers and programmers who absolutely delight in the fruits of the industry. No doubt the titans of the AI industry, who stand to lose their shirts, would also like a bailout. As would the workers under their leadership. Finally, if the governments of the world are taking “AI” technologies as seriously as I think they are, then I should expect a bailout in the event of bubble go boom is inevitable. In which case, Buy Low; Sell High.
  • gtowey 2mo ago
    > You have alighted onto an interesting topic: “bail out”. I believe a closely related word on the semiotic chain is “retreat”. Huh? That's a different meaning of "bail out". In this context its meaning is closer to "rescue" and not retreat.
    • xtiansimon 2mo ago
      Literally a "bailout" is a "rescue", yes. Hmmm? Let's call it a "figurative expression" then. You could say it would be a "retreat" to not bailout AI. A turn away. Run. For example if the investment in data centers using borrowed money is not paid back on-time, and the investments fail, and there is no bailout, resulting in a cascade of business failures, then the I would say we "retreated" from AI. Retreat from the Technology. Retreat from the Economics of AI services. Hoo-Haa! For example, if crypto failed there might be a "retreat" as far as crypto is not a bedrock of the banking industry. But I'm probably wrong in my characterization of crypto. Whatever. Not like Crypto can be compared to Tulip Mania. Now there's a retreat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
  • danaris 2mo ago
    > No doubt the titans of the AI industry, who stand to lose their shirts No they don't. They stand to lose points on their dollar-denominated high scores. If every one of the AI companies went belly-up, their execs would all live very, very comfortably for the rest of their lives even if they never got another job.