That's not an unfair assessment, but I would pose additional questions:

Why does doing the morally sound thing always have to be easier, better, and cheaper than ruining the world and creating human misery? Why must the morally superior argument be financially unassailable?

I'm getting older and angrier and I've grown tired of meeting greedy, disingenuous adversaries halfway just to have my hand slapped away after they get what they want. Since we've established that conservatives will absolutely put up with pain to harm outgroup bogeymen, I don't listen to their appeals for things that I hope will reduce human misery in the world.

With that in mind: Tax the rich like it's the 1950s, healthcare for all, stop burning fossil fuels, etc. Do it all and see what works, darn it.

▲

gizmo686 2 days ago | parent [-]

Once you accept that doing the morally sound thing costs money, the question becomes what is the most good you could do with that money.

We could pay to run LLMS at highly subsidized rates for the global poor. Or we could take the money we would have spent running those LLMs and just give it to the poor. I'm not saying direct cash infusions is the best way of spending that money. But doubling their income seems a lot more effective that a ChatGPT subscription.

▲

kashunstva 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Once you accept that doing the morally sound thing costs money, the question becomes what is the most good you could do with that money.

Relative to the topic of this thread, providing access to LLMs at a loss would not be at the top of my list of ways to right moral wrongs either. But more broadly, taxing the rich costs nothing, unless one believes that Reagan economic theory is backed by actual empirical evidence. Some actions in civic life are done for symbolic reasons. People doff their hats and apply their right hand to their precordium for symbolic reasons. We can progressively tax all to symbolize something about economic fairness and opposition to the winner-take-all ethos.

▲

xvector 2 days ago | parent [-]

> But more broadly, taxing the rich costs nothing

It does though.

1. As one of "the rich" that progressives target continuously, I still can't afford a house in CA. I'm moving to Washington and CA will lose many median Californians' worth of income.

2. Nearly every EU country that attempted wealth taxes (another form of "taxing the rich") recalled them due to capital flight that offset the tax income.

3. California has passed the peak of its Laffer curve, where higher taxes don't provide higher returns due to capital flight. https://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/californias-laffer-cur...

4. I personally don't feel the value in working harder or smarter to earn more, because the marginal returns are so low due to taxes. Discouraging innovation is not good for the country.

> We can progressively tax all to symbolize something about economic fairness

Despite the common memes the US has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. https://manhattan.institute/article/correcting-the-top-10-ta...

Anyways, "taxing the rich" simply doesn't get us there:

1. You could liquidate every billionaire, including all their assets, and you wouldn't fund the government for 9 months.

2. The rest of us that progressives consider "rich" are W-2s that already pay a fuckton in taxes. If you look at the sources above, this is explained clearly.

3. Contrary to the meme, the biggest objective gap in tax income is not on the rich but on our middle class, which does not pay its fair share wrt our EU counterparts (explaining the gap necessary to fund the desired social services, which taxing the rich would not cover due to its comparatively small size). 40% of Americans pay no federal income tax! https://freakonomics.com/podcast/ten-myths-about-the-u-s-tax...

---

Finally, at the core of your assumption is the idea that more taxes help. As someone that has worked in both government-funded labs and government contracting, I can promise you they don't. The sheer wastage is mind boggling, honestly sickening. It makes the our tech mega corps look tiny. I used to have a progressive view on taxation until I saw the infinite money black hole that was government spending.

▲

Smeevy 2 days ago | parent [-]

You make over $500k annually and you can't afford a house? I call shenanigans.

Your pearl clutching about government waste seemed weird to me until I read your links. Manhattan Institute? You're citing positions from right-wing think tanks after Project 2025?

Unless you need guidance for how to kidnap gardeners or stop women from voting, anything coming these organizations is dangerously ridiculous.

	▲	xvector 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You clearly aren't discussing in good faith if your response to the write up above is essentially "right wing thought detected, opinion rejected." What an excellent demonstration of shutting off factual information to support your own biases. - You know nothing about the CA housing market vs income and income tax, or my personal situation, but you simply assume I'm lying. - You're intentionally sticking your head in the sand because you think the paper is from a "right wing think tank" - regardless of the fact that an extremely well-respected fiscally liberal podcast, Freakonomics, supported the findings. - You're somehow asserting that because I find the findings in an economic paper compelling, I must support the erosion of civil liberties, in an attempt to reduce my argument to the absurd and insult my character. It shocks me that people can engage in discussions so simplistically and maliciously. HN has deteriorated so much because of comments like yours. Please just refrain from participating entirely if you're going to yell into the void and then not engage in good faith. Reddit is that way.

▲

Smeevy 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I would absolutely agree that ChatGPT access loses out to physiological and safety needs by more than a little bit.

Now that I think about it, I'm not quite sure where to put cost-effective LLM access in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.