Einstein's field equations link geometry to matter and energy:

G_μν = 8πG/c⁴ · T_μν

Left side describes how spacetime curves (the metric tensor). Right side represents what's causing the curvature (the stress-energy tensor): mass, energy, momentum. The usual approach is: you specify T_μν (what matter is where) and solve for the resulting curvature. Metric engineering takes the backward approach. You pick the geometry you want first: e.g a bubble that carries its contents faster than light relative to the outside universe. Then you work out what T_μν would have to be to produce that geometry: what distribution of energy and stress the equations demand.

The classic example of spacetime metric engineering is the Alcubierre drive.

The limitation with this is that the required T_μν has negative energy density in some regions (the bubble walls) which violate some assumptions about how "reasonable" matter behaves. But Quantum Field theory allows such local regions of negative densities and we have created such regions in labs experimentally already (Casimir effect). We "just" don't know how to sustain the effect at bigger (atomic) distances.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48598638

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

They are proposing solutions to a hypothetical problem they are actively trying to manifest into reality to get more capital and funding.

That's what hypocritical about it. Not the development of the technology nor the effort to lobby for more regulations and policies.

The general discourse around AI could be much more sensible and pragmatic and lead to a more balanced, healthy rollout of the technology in society. But of course this means forfeiting at least part of the massive injection of capital in those companies and the ecosystem in the short-term.

They are recognizing themselves in their economic policy framework that the lowest level of unemployment potentially caused would be 5% (they also mention 10% and "unprecedented levels of unemployment").

I don't think there is a precedent for this claim. It's hard to take the "we're a force for good for humanity" message seriously in this context.

I believe it goes deeper than the "logical proof" sense. It's a category mistake. Consciousness can never be "objectified".

About the readiness potential I'd argue that it's still happening in consciousness just not being registered by the mind of the participant. In the experiment "conscious decision" or "unconscious brain activities" are misnomers. Thoughts, decisions, memory, latent biases, etc. are processes of the mind not of consciousness.

Anesthesia and deep sleep are also useful scenarios to investigate. There is an interesting question to contemplate for those examples: are they an absence of experience or an experience of absence? I'd contend that it's the experience of the complete cessation of all workings of the mind and sense organs. But consciousness is still there. Otherwise how would you experience the transition from waking state to deep sleep/anesthesia and then back to waking?

> We are not seeking job displacement. We are working to prevent or minimize it. Some amount of displacement, though we cannot say how much, may be an intrinsic consequence of the technology, and our responsibility is to prepare for it and respond to it. That is what this framework is for.

> Whatever happens, we are on the side of people. We are trying to solve these problems. We take no satisfaction in contributing to them, and we are not working to make them more likely.

The cognitive dissonance/doublespeak/hypocrisy (pick one) is absolutely insane.

They are concurrently:

1. creating and marketing products that are explicitly trying to automate, if not entire professions, at least big parts of them

2. edicting grand policy plans to limit the impact of massive job displacement that their products might cause

3. directly funding and coordinating missionary-type activities ("it's for a greater cause") to evangelize and propagate said products in areas of the economy that are usually underfunded and where job security is already quite bad (non-profits, NGOs)

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48543734

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

However, getting relatively accurate and meaningful numbers for billionaires income is probably virtually impossible. Hence the comparison to their wealth which is known. I think it's still a valuable and common comparison. See https://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_rich_26_trend_percentx... or this New York Time article: https://archive.is/KvbQH or this Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2026/may/15/wealth-br...

> But startups are the most common way to become really rich, and if you want to start a successful startup, the key is not exploitation but empathy.

There is no doubt that Graham is right in saying there is a formula to becoming a billionaire and that formula involves creating products that help your users in some way.

However this is very narrow, reductionist interpretation of AOC's comment. You need to put it into perspective of the massively increasing global wealth inequality.

In 2011, billionaires owned 4.5 trillion USD of wealth. Today, fifteen years later, it's 20.1 trillion USD. This amounts to about 20% of the entire planet's GDP. That means 0.000003% of humans capture 20% of the value globally created. The top 12 billionaires own more than 50% of the bottom half of humanity.

How can you sensibly argue that this is not exploitation?