He rather obviously is asking to establish a 3rd party specifically for this task, and to establish guidelines relating to the given concerns, and to establish guidelines for government actions based on the evaluation by the 3rd party.

She certainly frames it in a way that you have to personally cheat, or personally create the myth that you've earned it, or at least it can be interpreted that way. But I think it is the system itself that causes unearned[1] money to accumulate. Money begets power begets money, with or without any intention of the actors to exploit this is any bad way.

I don't think we know a better system, but I do think we can point to the level of wealth accumulation and say this is a bad property of this overall very good system, and we should try to do something about it.

[1] Or rather: Money to accumulate disproportionate to the earning. We can say that many billionaires have earned something very significant and ALSO say the accumulation is disproportionate to that, and that there is an opportunity here for improvement.

I think you'd rather have good odds at some companies and 0% at others, rather than abysmal but non-zero odds at all companies.

And as an added bonus, you might get hired at a company where you're actually a good fit, rather than one you weasled your way into, and get to pay rent, food bills, and other expenses through employment for a long time!

I believe the toy is indifferent to your inability to enjoy it.

If I invest half my income and spend half my income, and the prices of goods goes up 4.2% and my income goes up 4.2%, then I've made progress; I'm now investing more than half my income, because the half of my income I was spending has stayed even and the half I was investing has increased.

edit: I've explained how this works in a reply below.

Extreme bike-shedding here, maybe, but can you please indent every other line (like the presentation of They're Made out of Meat does)?

I think the idea of "Netflix for LEGOs" started where one might expect X but for Y services to start - California.

We used one of these services in the USA somewhere nearing 10 years ago. Looks like they're still around at https://netbricks.biz/ - but I also see https://brick-library.com/ and https://brickdrop.co and wouldn't be surprised if there's more. It worked great. I detected zero incompatibility with my being from the USA. I didn't eat or carelessly throw away a single brick.

From a search it look like Pleygo was the first such startup from 2012 and based in San Jose / Santa Clara, but is no longer around.

Presumably I'd do just as well visually near 90 and 95 as near 10 and 5, the difference is in the first stage, estimating the percentage.

Extremely strange way to deliver the headline (right before delivering the headline).

It may be more of a product alignment thing, where the fix may be making the context clearer, since it was violating an implicit agreement to achieve the explicit instructions it received. So the fix may involve a lot of better context.

But then also, to the extent that the fix does NOT involve better context, it seems like it hits the zone where alignment issues are really capability/intelligence issues. Which doesn't make them not-alignment, but it does make "alignment" not give off quite the right vibe since the issue is it's too dumb / has no common sense / can't make good judgments, (general issues the models have across the board).

Of course not!

That's what they'd name their bluetooth bomb.

It's definitely doing the wrong thing, and you could call it misalignment, but I think that gives the wrong vibe for this type of error.

It'll be true eventually. Could even be now, but I'm not holding my breath yet.