Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48813098

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

>Our findings show that LLMs exhibit difficult-to-predict, escalatory behavior, which underscores the importance of understanding when, how, and why LLMs may fail in these contexts.

https://hai.stanford.edu/assets/files/2024-05/Escalation-Ris...

Camus believes that state sanctioned revenge just breeds more violence. The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is something that offends the senses, and it is ultimately served on the platter as a criminal getting their just punishment in revenge.

Either such a revenge is public, to declare that justice has occured, or it does not happen at all. What revenge is a secret and supressed lethal injection? By all accounts, revenge should be public and furious, it should be there for the victims to see.

>Indeed, one must kill publicly or confess that one does. not feel authorized to kill. If society justifies the death penalty by the necessity of the example, it must justify itself by making the publicity necessary (Camus).

Thus, revenge is not a sufficient reason for capital punishment due to the abhorence we have to see death in public. Camus adds that such public exetions only harden the ones who need to be softened and offend the soft. He uses the example of pickpockets. A large majority of pickpockets who were sentenced had viewed the execution of a pickpocket before. Revenge only perpetuates violence.

Camus doesn't think that a muderer _doesn't_ deserve a punishment, but rather that a murder in any case cannot be accepted.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48790036

Points: 51

# Comments: 37

Comments on: One singular post

>Calls people pedophiles(?), calls for homicide(?)

0/8 bait, best regards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity#Programm...

Anyways, footnotes seem to work or are in-text. Links work as well so IDK the problem?

Then you talk about the claim of notability? Wikipedia's terms for notability are different than just a lot of people using the product. It's not the best, and should be reworked, but you're confusing wiki policies for general terms.

Then, we summarize that the article, author, and wikipedia are trash. Definitely one of the non-sequiturs of all time, lol. You don't even have an issue that the article is deleted, showing that you have no knowledge or at the very least don't care about adding substance to the discussion.

To summarize:

Please articulate your thoughts in a understandable, neutral manner that adds to the discourse.

First, they have something about how corporations in distribution soley act as uneeded middlemen. I can see the angle but I think that if consumers didn't need the middlemen how come the exist in the first place? There must be some sort of demand.

Second, repsonding to solvency, monopolies in _any_ entity is dangerous because they lead to profit gouging and corruption because greed is far more powerful than virtue. Ex: Uzbek cotton scandal [1]. But let's say that the goverment happens to be virtuous, which they have an _incredible_ track record of.

Then, the next step is to... tax the producer to fund the govt? This stifles free competition by lowering possible profit margins and creating an enviroment where bulk products still reign supreme, so the status quo doesn't really shift.

And do you know how we're going to take the spot as the distributor? We're going to...

>tell Amazon they have to unionise and...take their premises.

I see no possible way that this rushed takeover of an international corporation could go well. If anything, the status quo shifts negatively---workers get laid off by amazon and have to get rehired by the govt, which adds overhead to the nation's supply chains which most likely is detrimental to overall wellbeing.

So let's assume that all of the above consequences don't happen and state capitalism is achieved. What now? We are just shifting inequality from outside our nation to internationally. Who do you think will be exploited in this brave new world of ours? Not us, but someone else. Capitalism necessitates the undervaluement of labor for profit. Our capitialist machine can't stop, so others will inevitably become oppressed. Hey, at least it's not "us" ;)

The final part of the proposal is essentially a buy now pay 20 years later for everything you have. 800 dollar washing machine? Now that's just 40 dollars a year! This reminds me of those buy now, pay later kinds of deals where you are lured in by a cheap sticker price, over consume, and are then crushed for the next few years. I don't think that this is a great policy.

They have this whole section about open source, which I think is a pretty good idea and also think is urealistic.

Then to really screw over the rich we steal intellectual property and make cheap clones of everything magically! Alienate the US! Go and work with India and China who totally aren't also problematic and have oligrarchs! Scotland prosperity! UBI! Yay!

>You can imagine it quite easily The issue is that it's just one set of unlikely circumstances and bad consequences piled one on top of another. This is nigh impossible to make happen.

I think this whole "screw oligarchs" thing and replacing oligarchs with state capitalism is masking the fact that capitalism and greed is the root of the evil, not the wealth disparity. In no world does greed provide a solution to inequality (see the wealth disparity between nations in the Global South and the nations that exploit them).

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbek_cotton_scandal]

As a suggestion, if you need to include that this project is indeed safe for work in the title, it may be a good idea to change the project name.

a) buffoons who have surface level comprehesion of LoTR,

b) impulsively decided on a famous fantasy name for their tech (surprisingly common), or

c) playing up the "morally ambiguous" trope. Palantir serves evil as a service to whoever is willing to pay (USFG).

My money is on c.