Obviously AI will continue to get better at doing work. But what if we started leveraging AI to distribute the work.

For example, in any relatively complex situation you need coordination and a clear understanding of responsibilities and a clear understanding of the project in order to be able to distribute the work effectively. AI could be in a unique position to analyze a situation, learn from the situation, and understand (based on what it learns about the work itself and the people doing that work) how best to distribute the work in a way that keeps everyone busy but not overwhelmed, and able to break down the work to such a precise degree that you would (for example) almost never run over a budget on a software project.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46214916

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

The original report was Washington Post, I saw it on YouTube / MSNBC since wapo is behind a paywall.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45925474

Points: 1

# Comments: 3

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

I'm still dabbling but have kind of latched onto the idea of using Ceph. To my understanding they were acquired by RedHat, and the project has all the signs of real open source, including the fact that it originated as a doctoral research project at the University of California, Santa Cruz, with initial funding from the U.S. Department of Energy.

The leap I seem to have trouble getting to is this. If you can't trust the people responsible for the proprietary software, how can you be sure that they won't turn around and start using new chips or software once the existing ones are reverse engineered? Perhaps it's about patents and the patent holders could be using this IP as a cash cow?

There are a number of others, though as well where the recurring theme seems to be the "evil elites" leaving the poor to fend for themselves.

Definitely agree, no one "knows" how the world works. I don't think the OP presumes anyone does. The intention in saying this was to point out that there are some (these days it seems many) who are off the mark in an almost tragic way, and have no desire to reflect / improve on this.

Typically the embedded story (at least in the stories I'm familiar with) seems to be that elites leave earth or somehow isolate themselves from the rest of society and maliciously leave the rest of the planet behind. In some way the intention of those elites tends to be painted as evil for the fact that they did this to the rest of human civilization.

When I think about those stories I can't help but wonder if we're actually seeing the opposite of that unravel. Where it's the "rest of society" who are pushing "elites" (probably a better way to put it is higher socioeconomic position) to want to escape the insanity they're creating with their categorical misunderstanding of (or lack of curiosity about) "how the world works".

Hopefully I'll be given the opportunity to be an early investor in the first venture to build a space colony, even if it's only to orbit the planet, or someplace like the moon. :) I don't think I'll hesitate if the opportunity arises. Curious if anyone else wants to contribute their thoughts on this?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44930686

Points: 10

# Comments: 14

I do agree that people with real mental health issues, who only want to see death and destruction of the people and world around them might think it would be fun, but I'd argue that those people wouldn't be very effective at achieving that goal.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44700640

Points: 7

# Comments: 3

> What has become known since as the "Coasean World,"--where rational actors transact freely without need for institutions, firms, or even law—"is really the world of modern economic theory, one which I was hoping to persuade economists to leave."

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44699942

Points: 4

# Comments: 1

A lot of what I read online tells me that most people treat far-right (and other) extremism as an unnatural phenomenon. But the more I think about it I am starting to think it's a very natural phenomenon.

Does it strike you that what we're currently experiencing is a systematic loss of faith in humanity and its institutions? Does that just mean these people were born with, or derived these feelings from nothing? Or are they just like the rest of us who ended up "on the short end of the stick" in life?

I think what could follow from this reasoning is that extremism in a society could be used as a metric for us all, collectively, to understand whether or not we're "doing a good enough job" for our fellow citizens and humanity in general?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44664036

Points: 1

# Comments: 2

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44649285

Points: 1

# Comments: 2

3. Misinterpreting Natural Selection as a Moral Imperative:

Misunderstanding: Darwin's theory of natural selection describes a biological process where organisms with traits better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce. It is a descriptive scientific theory, not a prescriptive moral or ethical framework. Misinterpretations often turn this into an "ought" – that society should operate like natural selection, with the "strong" prevailing and the "weak" perishing.

Far-Right Connection: This can manifest in arguments against social safety nets, or in justifications for aggressive competition, or even in the dehumanization of certain groups deemed "unfit."

Clues Online: Discussions that frame societal problems solely in terms of individual "fitness" or that advocate for policies that intentionally disadvantage certain groups under the guise of "natural order" might be drawing on this misinterpretation.

4. Racial Interpretations of Evolution:

Misunderstanding: While Darwin's work predates modern genetics and was influenced by the prevailing racial views of his time (and some of his own writings unfortunately reflect this), the scientific understanding of human evolution today emphasizes common ancestry and genetic diversity within a single human species. It refutes the idea of distinct "races" as biologically separate categories or that some "races" are inherently superior or inferior.

Far-Right Connection: Historically, and in some contemporary far-right circles, evolutionary concepts have been twisted to support racist ideologies, claiming a hierarchy of human "races" and justifying discrimination or even violence.

Clues Online: Any rhetoric that uses "evolution" to argue for racial purity, racial hierarchies, or a "struggle" between different human racial groups is a clear sign of misunderstanding and misapplication of scientific evolutionary theory. This often appears in white supremacist or ethno-nationalist online spaces.

In summary, the online landscape provides ample evidence that some within MAGA and other far-right ideologies misunderstand Darwin's research by:

Conflating biological evolution with "Social Darwinism."

Rejecting evolution in favor of creationism or Intelligent Design due to religious or ideological beliefs.

Misinterpreting natural selection as a moral blueprint for society.

Using distorted evolutionary concepts to justify racist or discriminatory views.

It's crucial to remember that these are misinterpretations and misapplications, not accurate reflections of modern evolutionary biology.

Are there any clues you may have come across online that would indicate that perhaps MAGA (and other far right ideologies) misunderstand the research of Charles Darwin?

I've never seen this discussed in this way. Maybe I'm just not following the right forums. :). This seems important enough (at the core even) that it probably should be included in today's political conversation.

Yes, there are several indications that far-right ideologies, including those associated with MAGA, often misunderstand or misrepresent the research of Charles Darwin. These misunderstandings typically stem from a conflation of biological evolution with social or political doctrines, often for ideological purposes. Here are some key clues and common misinterpretations:

1. "Social Darwinism" and its Misapplication:

Misunderstanding: A central misunderstanding is the concept of "Social Darwinism," which is not Darwin's theory. While the phrase "survival of the fittest" (coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin) is often incorrectly attributed to Darwin, it was later adopted and distorted to justify social, economic, and racial hierarchies. Social Darwinism posits that certain individuals, groups, or nations are inherently "fitter" and therefore deserve to dominate, often leading to arguments against social welfare, for unchecked capitalism, imperialism, or even eugenics.

Far-Right Connection: This misapplication resonates with some far-right narratives that emphasize individualism, competition, and a belief in inherent superiority or inferiority among different groups. While mainstream science widely discredits Social Darwinism, its underlying competitive and hierarchical ethos can align with some far-right views on societal structure and power dynamics.

Clues Online: You'll find articles and discussions online from both academic and popular sources highlighting how Social Darwinism misrepresents biological evolution and how it has been historically used to justify discriminatory policies, including those associated with extreme nationalist or supremacist ideologies.

2. Creationism and Intelligent Design:

Misunderstanding: A significant portion of the far-right, particularly those with strong evangelical or fundamentalist Christian leanings, reject the scientific theory of evolution in favor of creationism or Intelligent Design (ID). Creationism adheres to a literal interpretation of biblical creation accounts, while Intelligent Design argues that life's complexity points to an "intelligent cause" rather than undirected natural processes, often implying a divine designer.

Far-Right Connection: For these groups, accepting evolution is seen as a challenge to religious faith and traditional values. The rejection of evolution often goes hand-in-hand with a broader skepticism towards mainstream science and institutions, a common theme in some far-right rhetoric.

Clues Online: You'll see numerous websites and organizations associated with creationism and Intelligent Design (like the Discovery Institute) that actively promote arguments against evolution, often framing it as a "controversy" despite overwhelming scientific consensus. These arguments frequently appear in discussions on forums and social media popular among conservative and far-right communities.

Continued in comments:

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44644834

Points: 2

# Comments: 4