But for the record, the workers due deserve to be paid for the value of the work that was taken.
I have complicated feelings about this issue. I agree that, in theory, we should compensate people harmed by beneficial economic restructuring, such as innovation or free trade. Doing so would ensure that these transformations leave no one strictly worse off, turning a mere Kaldor-Hicks improvement into a Pareto improvement.
On the other hand, I currently see no satisfying way of structuring our laws and norms to allow for such compensation fairly, or in a way that cannot be abused. As is often the case with these things, although there is a hypothetical way of making the world a better place, the problem is precisely designing a plan to make it a reality. Do you have any concrete suggestions?
I deleted it in an impulse due to oversensitivity to the criticism that I was using ai; in large part because I did think the comment was somewhat verbally low quality, I kinda talk rambling like an ai on high temperature. I’d called that out as such in the reply. Richard came by and was like “I have no idea what you’re saying, can we ban ai generated text here please?” and I was like “okay yep I am not in the mood to defend myself about how crazy I often sound, delete”—most things I’ll just let myself be confident in my own knowledge and let others downvote if they disagree, but certain kinds of accusations I’d rather just not deal with (unless they become common and thus I begin to think they’re just concern trolling to make me go away, at which point I’d start ignoring the accusation; but while it’s semi rare, I assume it’s got some basis).
the comments were:
first comment: yeah, but the ais and their users do owe some amount to the workers whose work the ai transformed and recombined (adding now: similarly to how we owe the ancestors who figured out which genomes to pass on by surviving or not)
second comment: we should try to find incrementalized self-cooperating policies that can unilaterally figure out how much to pay artists before it’s legally mandated in ways that promote artist contribution enough that the commons converges to a good trade dynamic that doesn’t cause monopolization. eg, by doing license tracing through a neural net, and proposing a function of license trace that has some sort of game theoretic tracing in order to get this incrementalization I describe.
[comment deleted]
I have complicated feelings about this issue. I agree that, in theory, we should compensate people harmed by beneficial economic restructuring, such as innovation or free trade. Doing so would ensure that these transformations leave no one strictly worse off, turning a mere Kaldor-Hicks improvement into a Pareto improvement.
On the other hand, I currently see no satisfying way of structuring our laws and norms to allow for such compensation fairly, or in a way that cannot be abused. As is often the case with these things, although there is a hypothetical way of making the world a better place, the problem is precisely designing a plan to make it a reality. Do you have any concrete suggestions?
[comment deleted]
I have no idea what your second paragraph is saying, or if it is even saying anything.
Should we have a ban on AI-generated text here, other than for demonstrations explicitly labelled as such and on April 1?
I did not use ai. I just think high temperature. meet me in real life if you’re skeptical, I guess. deleted the comments, though.
I wasn’t sure that it was AI, but it had the same sort of unfocussed feel to it.
I can’t remember exactly what this comment said but didn’t recall having an issue with it.
I deleted it in an impulse due to oversensitivity to the criticism that I was using ai; in large part because I did think the comment was somewhat verbally low quality, I kinda talk rambling like an ai on high temperature. I’d called that out as such in the reply. Richard came by and was like “I have no idea what you’re saying, can we ban ai generated text here please?” and I was like “okay yep I am not in the mood to defend myself about how crazy I often sound, delete”—most things I’ll just let myself be confident in my own knowledge and let others downvote if they disagree, but certain kinds of accusations I’d rather just not deal with (unless they become common and thus I begin to think they’re just concern trolling to make me go away, at which point I’d start ignoring the accusation; but while it’s semi rare, I assume it’s got some basis).
the comments were:
first comment: yeah, but the ais and their users do owe some amount to the workers whose work the ai transformed and recombined (adding now: similarly to how we owe the ancestors who figured out which genomes to pass on by surviving or not)
second comment: we should try to find incrementalized self-cooperating policies that can unilaterally figure out how much to pay artists before it’s legally mandated in ways that promote artist contribution enough that the commons converges to a good trade dynamic that doesn’t cause monopolization. eg, by doing license tracing through a neural net, and proposing a function of license trace that has some sort of game theoretic tracing in order to get this incrementalization I describe.
Yeah, the specific calling that out was part of the reason it seemed fine to me.