groundzeros2015 6 hours ago

So do you have a counterpoint to his argument that 1 and 2 enabled new methods and scales of wealth creation?

reinitctxoffset 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I wrote a 542 token rebuttal to his argument that you originally replied to, but to zoom in on that particular nub of a much more complicated picture:

No serious person acting in good faith disputes that new methods of wealth creation have started appearing at a dramatically higher rate in the last two or three hundred years than any precedent before that. Everyone, including AOC (who I agree with in this instance but am not in general a huge fan of, just to be clear, I can respect a person's credentials without blindly endorsing them), would concede that point cleanly unless they were trolling.

The second point is so ill-formed as to verge on oxymoronic when examined against either of mechanism on the ground or Bayesian prior of history. New methods of wealth creation have triggered market failures admitting new methods of wealth centralization a number of times in recent history, the Gilded Age being perhaps the poster child for this failure mode, and the Great Depression being perhaps the poster child of the magnitude of that failure mode.

The sleight of hand here is recursive, the two points are one that is trivially true followed by the shellcode that looks like a test fixture, and the shellcode is a subtle rename, `s/time bash -c 'my-command'/sudo bash -c 'my-commmand/`. It's almost reasonable, except that it grants arbitrary privileges to something that definitely shouldn't have arbitrary privileges.

In both instances, pg is smart enough to know he's arguing in bad faith.

▲

groundzeros2015 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Both points support the same conclusion. You can create wealth now without taking it. Glad you agree.

> The second point is so ill-formed as to verge on oxymoronic

Sounds like name calling. I don’t see a rebuttal.

> am not in general a huge fan of, just to be clear, I can respect a person's credentials

Are the credentials here a Bachelors from BU? Is this an LLM?

▲

reinitctxoffset 5 hours ago | parent [-]

If you're not aware, in addition to being generally frowned upon on HN because it's zero-signal snark, the no doubt satisfying BU diss is also such a meme about socially awkward teenagers that it's a bit in a hit movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMmhcNKn0o.

At "Glad you agree" we've left plausible benefit of the doubt that you're arguing in good faith and so I'll bow out with one procedural grade discharge, which is that the LLM accusation is quite trivially prohibited in the stare decis of dang's rulings over the years, but still sometimes rallies downvotes, so my credentials as a human are that no LLM I'm aware of (and I work in AI) has YouTube channels of code streams.

Chain of custody on that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48511333 -> https://www.youtube.com/@b7r6-c3t so no, I'm not an LLM. I have Opus read my comments after I post them so I don't persist in trivial errors of reasoning, but I credit LLMs for their output just as I expect mine credited.

	▲	groundzeros2015 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Oh was your response not sarcastic name calling? The llm comment comes from this bizzare integration of random unrelated PG facts. As if you asked it to integrate that style. I was actually not knocking BU. I’m asking if the authoritative credentials you were referring to is a bachelors degree from a public university. Because most people have those and many of them don’t share then belief. If you are playing the credential game doesn’t PG have a Harvard PhD?