Charlie Munger's famous rule is: "Never, ever, think about something else when you should be thinking about the power of incentives."

So is it that we...can't? Or something else?

> If you say that we "understand the brain" because we understand how a neuron works, you'd be using "understand" in a way that mislead everyone reading that sentence.

What if we say we "understand the brain" because we can build one on demand?

Yes, and my comment was about the idea that these billionaires are often man-made, the population that funnels wealth to them could instead, in the first place, funnel wealth to the causes they ostensibly want the billionaires to support, cutting out the middleman. But very few people actually want world peace or a child in the third world getting a meal, as opposed to say, another can of coke or to stay home and get Doordash.

> This is usually how a prospering and successful civilisation works. You develop a justice system, laws and regulations so people don't smash their heads until their families are extinguished for example.

Agreed. It's par for the course and not necessarily evil. But worth being aware of the hypocrisy of deciding what "right" is, for others.

> @Edit I hope you saw the whole movie because dumping assets they know are nearly worthless on its own clients and counterparties before they find ou is not "giving people what they want". It works only because the buyers don’t know what they are buying.

Are you equating algorithms to fraud? That doesn't seem quite right.

They are giving people what they want. Surely they have given more people what those people wanted than you have. They have become very, very good at giving people what they want. What, after all, is an "algorithm"?

It's the people who want things that aren't in their own best interest. And when you take it upon yourself to "do good" in ways that deviate from what people want, you are taking the position of "the people don’t know what’s best for them, but I do."

The "they" in your "they chose to make the world worse," is the majority of the human populace.

Edit: Basically, https://youtu.be/TKC2c225EnE

There was a time when this same assumption was applied to African Americans.

I have never — not once — seen an LLM use em-dashes in pairs.

https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/professor/2231495

    Yet ah! why should they know their fate?
    Since sorrow never comes too late,
    And happiness too swiftly flies.
    Thought would destroy their paradise.
    No more; where ignorance is bliss,
    ’Tis folly to be wise.

    To each his suff'rings: all are men,
    Condemn'd alike to groan

    Where ignorance is bliss, / 'Tis folly to be wise

"Software architecture is solved, there is no longer any need for human intervention in the architecture or design of any software, nor in any subsequent stage"

Well, that is what Dario et al would like you to believe. However, the argument they can actually defend is:

"Programmers no longer need to type the code out by hand in most cases, they can get the result they want with (several iterations of) higher level instruction."

What a farce. Too bad people eat it up!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

You need Japanese blood (visibly), culture (language, manner, custom), and nationality to be "fully" accepted. This isn't new and has more to do with Japanese people themselves than with any legal restriction.

As an example, heliocentrism was profoundly ambitious yet devastatingly simple compared to geocentric formulae.

Charlie Munger once said "The right way to think is how Zeckhauser plays bridge. It's just that simple." He managed to boil it down to a single way to think. You disagree?

https://youtu.be/Z1sTs8wkAbw

But given that you are posting passive-aggressive "okay?"s to my explanation while purporting that you don't understand the comments while alluding to the notion that you do understand exactly why...makes me think you are just a troll, or worse.

So basically, a main character life, the life of a player. A player can even choose not to play the game, and it isn't their whole world.

The reason this post is incendiary is due to their overwrought metaphor which ultimately works quite poorly, if at all.

Plus, it reads like a 15 year old's diary entry.

The more you think about things and the deeper you investigate, the closer you get to realizing that most aphorisms, advice, and even "facts" are a combination of best-effort philosophy and selection biases from the lowest common denominator. Add in the Barnum effect and you end up with an ocean of inconsequential platitudes being parroted by every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

It's very difficult, requires active effort, and goes against human nature to act rationally. Most people don't even want to do it.