Do you seriously believe that is not happening now? Or that even a libertarian utopia could manage to achieve agreement?

If you're going to get philosophical, go all the way. Why have society at all because it's just people imposing their will on others? Or do you at least agree that there exists a line?

Even though there clearly must be a line on some topics, many people think those lines should be placed to minimize the number of times people are forced to do something (or prevented from doing something) against their will.

It’s not at all obvious that “adults can’t have TikTok” is anywhere near the correct side of that line.

Now count up the .NET runtime dlls too!

For every version between 3.5 and 10.

Free market depends on relatively equal knowledge. If there is significant knowledge disparity it's no longer free.

Internet initially helped consumers with knowledge. Now that balance has shifted to more and more corporations knowing more.

If we enshrine into law significant privacy expectations, that can restore the knowledge balance.

All the models I have used will frequently jump ahead a ton of steps and not verify any of its assumptions. From generating a ton of code output I didn't ask for, to making a ton of assumptions about what I'm working on without appropriate context.

Yeah, /plan is the only way I can work with them now. Too much "helpful" crap I didn't ask for. Having nightmares of former coworkers who would want to refactor 80% of the code base for a 3 line change. AI doesn't subscribe to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

We are returning to feudalism, with a cyberpunk spin on it.

You will not own anything. You don't even really own your tech now.

The writing is on the wall: you will not be allowed to modify what you own.

I don't get why people are so gung-ho about these companies having a moat.

As a user and a consumer, I don't want them to have a moat. Moat means pseudo-monopoly. That is the exact opposite of what we want.

Only the investors and owners want a moat, to keep others out.

So what they're doing? They're competing. Good.

> I don't get why people are so gung-ho about these companies having a moat.

Because they are investors, VCs, or startup founders who hope to establish their own moats.

Users and consumers can get a lot of useful information from HN, but it's important to keep the local demographics in mind.

Us consumers don't want moats. But to understand the investment you need to understand the moat: no sensible investor will throw this much money around without one. If you don't understand what is keeping new players from entering the market, then either you've missed something or we're in bubble territory.

That's why it's interesting to try to pick apart where the moat is.

Where do attempts to steal the election land on the spectrum of

|not ok to kidnap - - - - - - - ok to kidnap|?

Ok to kidnap

Shift enter should always put in a new line. Good luck exiting a block though with it.

It's because enter does different things at different times in the exact same text box.

Write a code snippet/block text. Does [enter] insert a newline, exit the block, or send the message?

What about in a bulleted or numbered list?

And my 2 biggest pet peeves with MS Teams:

1. trying to edit the first letter in a `preformat block`. It's not possible. It will either exit the block or go to the second letter.

2. Consistency with bold/italics. Bold a selection of text. Then backspace once. Are you going to write bold or normal? What does ctrl-B do? Anytime you backspace into a bolded section, it will convert your editing back to bold, and you cannot disable bold.

I have a very small Kevin Bacon number to the "guy who runs Teams". The message from them is "please use the built-in feedback tool to tell us about these things".

Judge people by actions not what they say.

You are arguing the opposite, that we should judge by what they say and not what they do?

The problem is that people have a million stories to explain the observed actions, most of those stories are bullshit, and people repeating them know fuck all about the decision-space in which these actions were chosen and taken.

Hm. I guess we can't possibly judge the guy who threw the molotov cocktail. He could have been clearing a wasps nest.

This is a accidentally good example, we don't know what motivated him, while your ridiculous reason is unsound because it would be also a bad thing to do if he were clearing a wasps nest on someone else's property in the middle of the night.

I suspect that they are not a bad person but someone radicalised by the media they consume.

Firebombing someone's house is a bad thing to do. It doesn't mean they are necessarily a bad person. Anger and confusion can make good people do bad things.

I don't care if Altman is secretly a good person. I care very deeply that he is taking actions to harm the world in grievous ways and is not doing any visible thing to mitigate the extreme damage he will do.

"Altman is secretly a good guy" doesn't pay people's mortgages.

I doubt it nets positive or even cancels out the damage, but if we're taking a fuller picture, then we shouldn't also assume Altman / other AI company CEOs are "taking actions to harm the world in grievous ways" for shits and giggles, or for large payday. Despite what skimming HN would make one believe, AI tools are actually useful in science, technology, and all kinds of productive work.

So the silver lining is this - they're not risking to burn the world down for porn or bitcoin, but for general improvement in everything across the board, that happens to have an unfortunate side effect of destroying value of labor.

I don't think that Altman is a Dr. Evil level villain who just wants to hurt people. I instead think that he does not care about the damage he causes on his path to personal wealth and glory and I think that this is precisely as terrifying. I'm sure that the machines made of my corpse would be used for productive purposes too.

Altman probably won't torture my cats to death. What a guy.