You are wrong, this is the mindset that allows such atrocities to become possible, even from non-psychopaths. Sadly, to a lot of people, there are not "humans" but "enemies", and once that's given, any atrocity follows.
The seminal (lol) Twitch Plays Pokémon was twelve years ago, so just posting this amazing moment of internet history/lore just in case folks don’t know or have forgotten: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitch_Plays_Pok%C3%A9mon
Public unions are fine as long as there is a counterweight.
What do I mean by a counterweight? For example, the MLB owners hold a monopsony over hiring pro baseball athletes, but the athletes have their own monopoly via the MLBPA. The result of this bilateral monopoly is that MLB players get better compensated than most other pro athletes. Of course the MLB is private, but I’m illustrating one type of counterweight.
You can have a similar system for public prisons requiring public unions, and Norway found a creative counterweight. Norway unionizes the prison correctional officers, but they also allow incarcerated people the right to organize; this allows them to negotiate wages, safety, and education programs. This provides a nice counterweight as prisoners have an incentive to advocate against correctional officer bloat/waste so those resources go to inmates, while correctional officers have a symmetric interest to keep prisoner bloat at bay. This is because they are ultimately competing for the same (finite) state budget.
Accordingly, giving prisoners more rights to advocate for themselves solves many problems of having a public union, while ensuring that budgets stay capped and tight. Conversely, the private sector tends to lobby aggressively to suppress prisoners' rights to maximize shareholder value, which permanently destroys this counterweight mechanism.
Premised on this counterweight system working, public prisons may not be sufficient to keep prisons humane, but they are likely necessary part of the solution.
For-profit is the delivery system, which should save taxpayer money. Systems where the institutions are directly administered by taxpayer funds and their attendant public employee unions also have political/financial incentives.
Either way - publicly-run or private contractor, if the government is a good steward of public funds, they'll monitor well to avoid waste and remove people who are trying to unjustly enrich themselves. And if the officials are incompetent or corrupt themselves, they'll fail to recognize when those things are happen, or participate themselves. I don't see a big difference in public vs. private unless I imagine a fantasy government run only by officials who are smart and highly ethical.
Ah, see, you didn’t recreate it just because of the interface; you recreated because it’s currently a high-trust social environment, because your friends and family are using it, because they know who you are. Old Facebook was high-trust because we all were naive and trusting.
Perhaps the question is how to continue to create high-trust environments from a social perspective, not an interface perspective.
This is an important observation, but there were specific technological choices that Old FB made that were conducive to becoming and staying high-trust. For so long as your feed was just your friends and family, you'd effectively perceive FB itself as the place where your friends and family are. It was ingenious.
Facebook figured out how to scale this high-trust environment infinitely (mutual friending required, limiting engagement to friends or mutuals, etc), and then threw it all away when your feed stopped being "your dear friend Jenny got married" and became "your dear friend Dua Lipa wants you to buy her new album".
No. My family was _not_ using it. The people who attended the same university were. Some of the change was when everyone had to moderate their output for different social contexts/audiences.
I think the 'sending posts directly to people' which mimics the way memes are sent on instagram helps a lot with this. If I know exactly who the audience is for what I'm sending it definitely makes it more comfortable.
Oh come on... "Chronological feed of your friend's posts" and "algorithmic mix of your follows, paid content, and shit optimised to keep you engaged" are two VERY different beasts. This is why Facebook of 2008 is different from Facebook/instagram/etc of 2026, not because the people or communities were somehow different.
Is it just me or is it a huge letdown that the text is all AI-generated? Or at least, in the same kind of saccharine style? Are people not able to detect this?
Didn't seem AI-generated to me. Just the short, three-word-sentence pithy style that's become really popular these days that LLMs have learned to ape. But IMO it actually works well here, it reminds me of Peter Watts's very human style (cf. eg. https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=11546).
There’s a distinction between technical drawing in plan and section, vs perspective. When you draw at scale, the size of your pen and its marks become scaled to the size of human movement. That is, the end effector of your pen(cil) tip becomes a metonymic representation of the person. When you focus at that scale, then it allows one to think ‘into’ a space.
Perhaps what I’m talking about is drawing or sketching with an accurate scale. The benefits of working with scale drawings is that the paper (whether physical or digital) becomes a simulation environment that is able to prove or disprove hypotheses - like “will this space feel cramped” or “will this furniture fit in this room”, or “will this crowd be able to flow this way”. This happens because the drawing space, as a Cartesian space, holds information about dimensions, as a consistent mapping from the physical world into the drawing world.
I’m not sure what the analogue would be for technology. Imagine if UMD diagrams or drawings for microservices were somehow scaled based on the robustness of each server? In the physical world, constraints move pretty slowly - your foundation usually isn’t going to move 5’ to the east in the next 100 years, whereas compute capacity might change a great deal overnight. The need for a consistent mapping space seems less important, because technology changes rapidly.
But if anyone has any examples of the equivalent of a scale drawing in technology, let me know!
The truth is the truth, whether or not it might align with a narrative or stereotype.
For example: NSA wiretapping was a truth that happened to align with pre-existing conspiracy theory narratives. It was easy to dismiss it as a crackpot theory, but that didn’t make the truth any less (or more) true.
If someone says “if you believe this might be true, you’re [a bad person]”, I would consider this person fundamentally against truth, and someone more interested in shaping narratives than upholding accuracy and integrity.
With so many conspiracy theories becoming truth and so much news proving to be lies over time, I now have more trust in something labeled as a conspiracy theory than in official news.
>...I now have more trust in something labeled as a conspiracy theory than in official news.
I think that is the goal. Destroy trust in formerly trustworthy sources so that the reality you see every day more closely aligns with one of the many conspiracy options.
Well, that's the conspiracy. Both in theory and practice. People conspire all the time, even those claiming they don't. If something is a conspiracy, doesn't mean it's not true. Or false.
So you don't think 50T parameter
neural networks can encode the logic for adding two n-bit integers for reasonably sized integers? That would be pretty sad.
You are wrong. Especially that we are talking about models with 50T parameters.
Can they do arbitrary computations for arbitrarily long numbers? Nope. But that's not remotely the same statement, and they can trivially call out to tools to do that in those cases.
Third things can exist. In other words, you’re implying a false dichotomy between “human computation” and “computer computation” and implying that LLMs must be one or the other. A pithy gotcha comment, no doubt.
Edit: the implication comes from demanding that the OP’s definition must be rigorous enough to cover all models of “computation”, and by failing to do so, it means that LLMs must be more like humans than computers.
After dismissing it for a long time, I have come around to the philosophical zombie argument. I do not believe that LLMs are conscious, but I also no longer believe that consciousness is a prerequisite for intelligence. I think at this point it is hard to deny that LLMs do not possess some form of intelligence (although not necessarily human-like). I think P-zombies is a fitting description.
I don't think P-zombies can exist. There must be some perceptible difference between an intelligence w/ consciousness and one without. The only way there wouldn't be a difference is if we are mistaken about the consciousness (either both have it or neither do).
> There must be some perceptible difference between an intelligence w/ consciousness and one without
I think there are differences, and I think we can make good guesses, but I'm not sure we can reliably classify a P-zombie from a normal human from their behaviour with 100% accuracy..
This is psychopathic.