grillosopher

[Ben Bayer @BenBayer]

So just as soon as medical providers and insurers become divine beings and acquire magical healing powers, they’ll be able to afford to do it for free.

Until such time, medical services come at a cost and like all other services are rightly incentivized by profit.

Your faith does not do you credit sir.

[The Enlightened Examiner @MrExaminer]

AnCaps, listen up.

In the free market, we trade particular goods. Our exchanges do not affect each others' lives. Every trade affects its traders and no others (at least not in a direct way).

However, laws are universal. They are abstract rules that apply to everyone by definition. That's why they can't be "competed" against each other.

If, say, in a parallel universe, someone would buy an apple and that would apply to all market participants (meaning, everyone would receive/buy an apple as well), then we would have no choice but to centrally plan the economy.

In the real world, this is true of laws. Laws are universal. Rights apply to all individuals uniformly. The question then becomes what laws should we have, and what is the best method to enact them.

Laws cannot be competed (this has no intelligible meaning in reality), they can only be deliberated.

What AnCaps do—which is very Kantian of them—is to debate the form or conditions of laws, not their content. As if the content "spontaneously emerges" from the form. But the form is universally abstract. The content is: which laws, as they relate to a particular sovereignty, over a specific geographical area, should we have?

[The Enlightened Examiner @MrExaminer]

Objective values are objective not because they are based on a standard but because they are based on a proper standard.

All values, objective or not, are based on a standard.

"Value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep," Ayn Rand writes. This is a broad characterization that consists of both objective and subjective values. Notice that this proposition points to goal-directed action. Namely, it is the goal that *directs* one's action toward achieving it.

Every goal establishes a standard. Even if, say, you decide to watch an Alfred Hitchcock movie, this goal establishes a standard: the movie you'll watch must be made by Alfred Hitchcock and not by, say, Howard Hawks.

This is an example that may feel too obvious or self-evident, but it's also true for more complicated goals. Let's say you want to win the Wimbledon Championship. This can be a life-goal, which establishes a subset of derivative goals, with each one establishing a sub-standard for how to achieve it (e.g., learning how to use a racket properly, getting in shape, etc.).

Every goal establishes a field or a range of means that make achieving the goal possible. That which is outside this range, is an improper means. Thus proper and improper means are judged by a standard established by the goal.

This is what Ayn Rand meant by measuring values according to a process of final causation (which, I presume, was Aristotle's view as well). Values ARE measured, just not by a cardinal unit. They are graded, or gauged, by a standard subjected to an ends.

Modern economics does not offer any standard of evaluation for economic values. They deliberately evade this issue and, to an extent, are not even aware of it. And more specifically, the whole framework of marginal utility deals with quantitative and allocative *conditions*. To reduce value to such and such conditions, without anchoring it to some standard—necessarily obliterates the concept of value from one's thinking. Having a wrong standard (e.g., labor/production costs) is maybe bad, but it's much preferable to the situation today where the mere idea of a standard is incomprehensible.

PS
Rand's ethics are objective because she identified life as man's ultimate goal/value, which makes all other goals and values possible. To state this in the negative: anchoring values in a standard which is not life has no causal basis in reality.

[grillosopher @grillosopher_]

@17thletters001 @grok is this real?

[grillosopher @grillosopher_]

@ToKTeacher @clairlemon Neither causation nor purpose are religious notions. The denial of either is self contradictory.

[The Enlightened Examiner @MrExaminer]

Libertarians are determinists. That's why they are such strong advocates of ignorance.

They presume that if humans could achieve certainty, central planning would be the best way to organize society.

So ignorance becomes their last gasp defense of free markets.

What they don't understand is that knowledge depends on exercising free will. And force blocks the capacity to act according to one's free will-exercised judgements. Thus free markets correspond to knowledgeable agents. Central planning corresponds to ignorance: it amounts to plundering wealth on the basis of whim.

[The Enlightened Examiner @MrExaminer]

Profit occurs because buyers recognize they are getting the end result of the producer's work.

Imagine making a cake. You buy all the ingredients, combine them according to a recipe, bake it—and someone swoops in, takes the cake, but hands you the same ingredients you used to make the cake with. You go at it again, mix the ingredients, bake the cake—and woosh! Someone again takes your ready-made cake, only to hand you the same ingredients. Groundhog Day until you die.

This is the meaning of covering costs without making a profit. You don't get to benefit from the fruits of your labor, viz., from the created good's (objective) use.

The divergence between costs and profit takes place because not everyone knows how to create the same product with the same level of efficiency. So even if I recognize the objective utility of your productive effort but someone else offers the same or similar good for a cheaper price, I'd prefer buying it from him.

The subjectivists however believe that profit emanates from the "inner world" of consumers—whatever that means. Hence producers must "anticipate" future demand as if they were soothsayers, acting in a foggy world of "uncertainty."

It's a wonder markets work at all! Can you see why the statists are winning?

PS
Did I just debunk Frank Knight?

[grillosopher @grillosopher_]

@ToKTeacher If you had or expect to have cancer then yes. If not, no. Context matters. You don’t get to ask these questions in an armchair and then pontificate infinite skepticism.

[grillosopher @grillosopher_]

@MrExaminer @RealKeithWeiner Do you consider a function of money as a cancellation of debt part of the Mengerian theory?

[grillosopher @grillosopher_]

@PerBylund The Objectivist argument is based on a fidelity to objectivity, a necessary pre-condition of due process so its understandable that subjectivist libertarians would see that as a void, being the hippies of the right that they are.

[Blake Scholl 🛫 @bscholl]

Quick thoughts on AI: When in human history has there ever been a technology that was net negative?

What about fire? Fire makes noxious smoke, risks burns, can destroy homes and can kill. But fire liberated us from the cold and let us cook our food. Then we made stoves with pipes — and they were safer and warmed our homes, but still carried some fire risk and had pollution. So we invented the power plant, which solved some problems with at-home fire—and we found ways to make better gas stoves and furnaces. Over time, we've made power plants better and better, reducing the negatives while enhancing the positives. Nat gas beats coal, and nuclear should beat both.

So what about nuclear? I admit it's debatable whether nuclear weapons are a net positive or a net negative. I'd argue a net positive—because they ended WWII and made a mass-casualty great-power war unthinkable. But even if you disagree about nuclear weapons, you have to acknowledge nuclear is a technology category broader than weapons: nuclear power, nuclear medicine, and X-rays are part of the same fundamental technology. And there's no question nuclear writ large is a massive net positive for humanity.

What about smartphones? They've certainly had downsides we need to take seriously — but it's obvious we are better off now than we were in the flip phone or landline era.

This is the typical story of technology. And it's the arc of progress that lifted humanity out of the wilderness, that freed 90% of the population from back-breaking farm work while virtually eliminating famine, that enables any human with a tap of a finger to access the sum total of human knowledge, that allows us to enjoy comfortable climate-controlled environs any time of the year in any outdoor climate.

My conclusion is: every technology has pros and cons. The cons are real—and the pros always outweigh the cons. As technology evolves, the improvements enhance the pros while reducing the cons.

So what about AI? The question is not: are there cons with AI? Obviously there are; technology always has cons. The question is: are the pros going to outweigh the cons?

Right now, with AI in its current state, it's not even close. The pros dramatically outweigh the cons. AI enables anyone to have a personal tutor. To offload repetitive and boring work. Anyone with an idea can become a creator and a software engineer. Individuals and small teams can do what used to take gigantic teams and big budgets. Our cars are becoming safer. Etc. Sure — we don't want AI teaching kids how to make nuclear bombs or bioweapons. We don't want hallucinating AI weapons. There are cons to be managed, solved, reduced, and eventually eliminated.

History shows us that as technology develops, the pros are enhanced while the cons are reduced. So if we want better, more useful AI with fewer downsides — we need to accelerate AI development, not slow it down.

[Alex Epstein @AlexEpstein]

It's so sad that AI developers are creating affordable, powerful mental assistance for everyone—and yet are afraid this is somehow going to destroy the world.

"AI" is a new type of *computer*.

We need to be careful how we *connect* it to high-stakes systems.

That's it.

"AI went rogue" amounts to:

1. Someone took a powerful, open-ended computer that they don't perfectly control (i.e., one running LLMs).

2. They deliberately reduced their control over its ability to produce potentially harmful outputs.

3. They connected the deliberately-badly-controlled computer to a high-stakes system.

Whether this is done irresponsibly or as a legitimate exploration of potential risks, it does not justify doomerism.

The proper conclusion to draw is that we need to responsibly develop LLM computers and be very responsible about when and how we connect them to high-stakes systems.

Not that AI is some interested, conscious being that has a 10% or even 0.0000001% chance of killing us all.

"AI" is a bunch of computers running an amazing new kind of software that we can and should use to be of enormous assistance to our lives.

AI computers are no more self-interested or conscious than a calculator or an abacus—even though their outputs do a great job of mimicking interests and consciousness.

While there is a real threat of people accidentally misusing AI assistance to do a lot of damage, that threat is always going to be limited by the humans who ultimately direct AI computers and can literally unplug them.

The biggest AI threat by far is bad actors deliberately using AI assistance to do a lot of damage.

To prevent this threat, as well as to reduce the damage of accidents, we need good actors, above all in the US, to proudly lead in this technology. Not to indulge in fear-mongering based on metaphysical nonsense.

[grillosopher @grillosopher_]

@ScottBartleWTF @Handre “Value” eh? I do not think that word means what you think that means. Clearly you have a collectivistic notions as to who decides what value is and to whom.

[spiked @spikedonline]

We failed the moral test of 9/11. 25 years on, the West is overrun with Islamist freaks. Our young sing the praises of Islamist armies like Hamas. And anyone who says Islamism is evil is branded Islamophobic. Oh God what have we done?, asks Brendan O’Neill
https://t.co/Ar6MaC1QzE

[grillosopher @grillosopher_]

@ScottBartleWTF @Handre Congrats, you just invalidated All money and money instruments. By this standard, only direct barter is legit.

[Rock Chartrand @RockChartrand]

The similarities between the socialist mentality and the most spoiled child imaginable are glaring.

The spoiled child says: I want it, therefore I deserve it. If someone else has more, it’s unfair. If told no, the problem isn’t the demand, it’s whoever refused it. Someone else should provide it, someone else should pay for it, and someone else’s interests become irrelevant the moment they conflict with his wants.

Socialism turns that tantrum into a political philosophy. It replaces “Mom, give me his toy” with “Government, give me his property.” Envy becomes justice, entitlement becomes a “right,” dependency becomes virtue, and taking without consent becomes compassion.

The great achievement of adulthood is learning that wanting something creates an obligation for you to pursue it, not an obligation for someone else to provide it.

[grillosopher @grillosopher_]

Settling the Is-Ought Issue, using AI
A dialogue with Gemini on Hume, Ayn Rand, and Deductivism https://t.co/3kkk504DP9

[grillosopher @grillosopher_]

Brilliant!! https://t.co/3kkk504DP9