Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | 1over137's commentslogin

> I think blogs talking up the risk side have a responsibility to also talk the other side.

She did. But perhaps not sufficiently for you?


It's qualified through a sense she repudiated "chemical sunscreen protection" and if that's going to "barrier methods only" meaning clothing and shade, I'd have a problem, yes.

OK but a job is a collection of tasks.

one of the most useful realizations regarding automation is that is not about making the operator superfluous, its about extending the operators reach.

the problem is you have to trust the automation until you swap back to that process and requalify the current parameters.

i cant afford to leave an AI unsupervised, and i cant operate if i have to remain at one station.


Did you do that for personal use or for billions upon billions of dolars?

So will this let us install apps (on suitably old hardware) without needing an AppleID?

No one else I guess. But they could use it themselves, building whatever plants/factories/server farms needed to use it.

>What if it becomes urgent to reduce CO2?

What?! It has been urgent for years.


>Canada needs new power now. Not 15-20 years from now.

Those can both be true. Canada will likely need more power in 15 years too. It's called long term planning.


Asbestos was renamed due to the negative connotations.

How does it follow that there’s no “international LLM market” just because one party is ahead of another? There’s an international car market even though some cars are better/worse than others.

and China is not threatening to invade the EU or Canada. They are the lesser of two evils at this point.

> and China is not threatening to invade the EU or Canada. They are the lesser of two evils at this point.

They don't need to. They can undermine the West economically and politically.

The US has been a much more violent imperial power but America's wars don't even scratch the surface of what it has done overseas through economic might and covert action.


You don't know what you're talking about. Russians occupied my country, killed almost no one, and yet it was far worse than all the economic damage caused by Western neoliberalism.

US imperialism has been a blight to the world, outright killing millions. Modern China did nothing on that scale.


I think you misread my comment.

> ...but America's wars don't even scratch the surface of what it has done overseas through economic might and covert action.

"What IT has done overseas" refers to the US.

But as for China, the Great Leap Forward is considered the largest man-made famine in history, causing somewhere between 15 and 55 million deaths. The Cultural Revolution resulted in the destruction of irreplicable artifacts and historical sites.

Like the US, China has been involved in sowing discord and destruction in other countries. What the US did in Cambodia was an absolute travesty. But China was Pol Pot's primary backer, having provided around $1 billion in economic and military aid to the Khmer Rouge. So it's not like China was an idle witness to what happened in Indochina last century.

We can argue all day about the greater and lesser of two evils but my point remains: powerful countries can cause significant harm to the world without invading other countries.


You do realize that your quoted figure of 15 and 55 million deaths, came from looking at population figures and assuming that everybody Pre great famine would have the exact same number of children and those children will have the exact same number of children as the starting point.

And is just pure nonsense, might as well claim that the US killed 548 million people, because in 1957 the US population was 172 million and had a TFR of 3.62 , assuming that trend held we would be at 720 million in 2026


Yes, I did interpret "it" as referring to China, not US, in that sense I misread it.

I agree that Great Famine was horrible.

My main point was, I would take economic control over tanks and bombs (and actually dead people) any day. (Which was kind of the point of EHS, even in it's most neoliberal incarnation.)


> My main point was, I would take economic control over tanks and bombs...

The problem is that most of the time, economic war ends with tanks and bombs.


That's not true, and anyway it's quite simplistic view of history.

And yet it is China who has, for the last 40+ years, successfully used the "start cheap, destroy competition, rise prices" tactic.

Why are you complaining, thats just the free market doing its thing.

Taiwan? South China Sea?

Comparatively tiny issues compared to US actions in the past several decades.

See how this comment plays out in the next 5 years.

Here's my prediction: Trump eventually crumbles, but is replaced by an equally (but differently) inept establishment Democrat figure. Conversations about inequality and wealth taxation in the West continue to be (increasingly) suppressed. Backlash against both inequality and related anticapitalist speech suppression continues to grow. Capital interests continue to use redirection (culture wars, race wars, religious wars, etc.) as a diversionary tactic. China's collectivist unity allows them to continue to reorient as things continue to change and evolve at a rapid pace. America's silicon and software advantage quickly evaporates. Economic advantage follows soon after (already in progress due to USD debt crisis and associated inflation). Africa and Latin America continue to shift towards China or neutrality. South Asia follows a bit later. North America and Europe remain indecisive and overreliant on America, American tech, and USD financial markets. Taiwan becomes increasingly pro-China/pro-unification as South Asia reorients towards Chinese hegemony while Western hegemony continues to crumble in on itself due to its inability to reign in overcompetition (capture) which stifles innovation and deteriorating material conditions sew ever increasing conflict and fragmentation.

Tl;dr: The West competes itself into irrelevance while China cooperates its way to victory.

Whether or not the information war turns into a kinetic war depends largely on the West's ability to recognize that coercion, deception, and manipulation in the pursuit of dominance is not really an effective strategy in an information war.


> China's collectivist unity allows them to continue to reorient as things continue to change and evolve at a rapid pace.

The trouble with authoritarian governments is that they depend on competence in the authority.

Xi is 73 now.

Single party states in general, and communist China in particular, don't have a stellar track record of handling power transfers gracefully.


Republic of China is not China, lol

On that front I think you’re badly mistaken. China’s government publicly states that it doesn’t see our idea of society and government as a good idea. They are a rivalling system, with very different values.

The US is many things, but it’s still way more aligned with European, Canadian, Australian etc goals than China ever will be.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: