Thread

1. modeless · 1790190319 · focus · HN ↗

   It's clear Dario believes that the solution to AI's PR problem is to cure cancer. Or invent other revolutionary medical treatments. They're going to heavily promote every step along the way no matter how small or far away from commercialization they are, like this one.

   No doubt that curing cancer would help, but I think the timeline might be a little too long. Even RSI AGI will not be able to get new medical treatments to market instantly. Real world testing takes a long time and is an unavoidable part of the process.

   1. baq · 1790190821 · focus · HN ↗

      Dario would like to ‘cure’ aging. He’s got some personal experience with bad illnesses, but aging isn’t that. I also have reduced trust for people who want to live forever and don’t have kids.

      1. SwellJoe · 1790191119 · focus · HN ↗

         > I also have reduced trust for people who want to live forever and don’t have kids.

         I want to live forever (or until I'm bored of it) and I don't have kids. I'm not sure what that has to do with trustworthiness.

         Edit: And, you're saying you want to die. Is that more trustworthy than not wanting to die? I suppose if you are religious, you might believe you're going somewhere good when you die, in which case, you don't actually believe death exists, so we're having different conversations. I believe death exists and is permanent, and I'd like to not do that.

         1. bigfudge · 1790192134 · focus · HN ↗

            Not Op but there’s a inch of people asking why, and I have a similar feeling to op so here’s my post hoc justification for a weakly held and poorly supported prejudice:

            It’s really because statistically, in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without. This is more in description than judgement, but it’s true in my experience. We can speculate as to reasons, but looking after kids does train a certain kind of selflessness. Agreed we might be doing it for ultimately selfish reasons (self presentational or for care in old age or whatever). But for a good chunk of the time, caring for kids seems to require the fairly consistent subjugation of personal preferences, and a degeee of perspective taking, that I just think people without kids don’t have. And that often shows in their interactions at work and in daily life. Obviously there are myriad exceptions. But it’s true enough in my experience.

            The wanting to live forever part also seems weird to me, and correlated with a certain sort of self regarding perspective. It seems obvious to me that I (or my generations) need to die for my children and grandchildren to have a good life. To try and subvert that also seems selfish or self important somehow.

            I’m not really arguing this is a correct or good or just position. It might be terrible! But it did resonate..

            1. AbsurdCensor · 1790193776 · focus · HN ↗

               > It’s really because statistically, in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without.

               That would certainly be your opinion. I think the ultimate selflessness in a world being more and more damaged by humans would to elect not to perpetuate the species, and help try to leave the world a better place for those who do choose to have kids.

               1. anthonypasq · 1790194151 · focus · HN ↗

                  very very bizarre ideology. Glad you arent having kids. thank you for your service.
               2. mik1998 · 1790194550 · focus · HN ↗

                  That's an absurdly selfish position. You're taking a stance that not existing is superior to living in the future, all the while living in the world yourself. Might as well advocate for nuclear genocide.

                  1. tuesdaynight · 1790195815 · focus · HN ↗

                     Why selfish? They said that they want to leave the world a better place for other people children. Is there something that I didn't get as an ESL?
                  2. AbsurdCensor · 1790279866 · focus · HN ↗

                     It's incredibly selfish to think that your value to pollute the planet is somehow more valuable than not existing.
               3. muspimerol · 1790195690 · focus · HN ↗

                  The flaw in that ideology is that everyone relies on the next generation for care in their old age. Taking advantage of the future generation without contributing to raising it isn't selfless in the slightest.

                  If you live in a developed country you probably already have a demographic crisis. Not having kids is hurting the next generation, not helping.

                  1. hlynurd · 1790198773 · focus · HN ↗

                     It still baffles me that some have children to have someone around them when they're old
                  2. AbsurdCensor · 1790279489 · focus · HN ↗

                     How is it a flawed ideology? There are a whole lot of places around the world who have people that want to help, allow them to help and pay them appropriately and at the same time make it easier for folks to live longer and more productive lives without the dedicated assistances of others. It's almost like 'community' means not just for the young.
            2. ForHackernews · 1790194163 · focus · HN ↗

               Isn't this just selfishness once removed? "I'm not doing this for me — it's for my kid, I would do ANYTHING (lie, cheat, steal, murder, bribe the admissions staff) for my child. See how selfless I am?"
            3. BeetleB · 1790194774 · focus · HN ↗

               > It’s really because statistically, in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without.

               I've witnessed the opposite: Having kids made people much more selfish. Resources were plenty before they had kids, so they would spend a lot (time and money) on others - be it friends or the general public.

               When kids come along, two things happen:

               1. Resources are limited, so a lot less goes outside the family.

               2. At least one parent will put the foot down when being generous to people outside the family - even if the wealth/income supports being able to do so. Tribalism sets in.

               1. phainopepla2 · 1790201319 · focus · HN ↗

                  Selfishness is commonly understood as putting one's own interest above everyone else's to an excessive degree, not the interest of their family. If you redefine it to include family interests then I think everyone would agree that having a family makes people more selfish, often dramatically so.

                  I just object to the redefinition.

                  1. BeetleB · 1790203532 · focus · HN ↗

                     I think this "redefinition" is apt in the context of the conversation. It's about people mistrusting those without kids because they are viewed as selfish, and I'm pointing out that they're often the least selfish, and more likely to "help the world" in situations where they do not benefit.

                     1. bigfudge · 1790234766 · focus · HN ↗

                        I can see your point, although in my experience it hasn’t actually worked that way. But even then, normalised for the amount of free time they have i think it’s unlikely to hold .

                        Take a specific scenario: imagine a difficult outdoors adventure maybe cycling or walking, when the weather is bad and something has gone wrong (and any kids have been left at home). All else equal would you rather be stuck with a parent or a non parent?!

            4. cannonpalms · 1790194920 · focus · HN ↗

               This aligns with my own experience to a T.
            5. rtsil · 1790195359 · focus · HN ↗

               Paying full taxes to support a society where people with kids pay less taxes and receive more benefits from the State is certainly not selfish. That's the case in my country, at least.

               1. charcircuit · 1790196519 · focus · HN ↗

                  Money is not the only way one can contribute to one's society. Doubling the amount of productive people to society is also a big contribution.
               2. swat535 · 1790258113 · focus · HN ↗

                  Those people pay less tax, because their children will pay for your retirement and provide support at your old age.
            6. asdff · 1790197481 · focus · HN ↗

               >It’s really because statistically, in my experience

               Uhh, no. Your experience is not data.

            7. sebzim4500 · 1790199293 · focus · HN ↗

               >in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without

               This goes so far against my own (equally anecdotal) experience that one of us must be living in a bubble

            8. orangecat · 1790203222 · focus · HN ↗

               The wanting to live forever part also seems weird to me

               Wanting to die after a handful of decades seems weird to me, especially if you're in good health.

               It seems obvious to me that I (or my generations) need to die for my children and grandchildren to have a good life

               That is very much not obvious.

               1. bigfudge · 1790235012 · focus · HN ↗

                  Boomer health and life expectancy is one of the issues western countries are struggling with now. Having GenZ pay for extended expensive retirements whilst simultaneously gouging them for artificially scare accommodation is the result. Now imagine everyone lives in perfect health forever. The incumbency effect for wealth and power is going to be overwhelming without pretty fundamental political and social change.

                  Perhaps you think that is possible? I hope so, but the evidence from octogenarian US politics isn’t hopeful.

                  1. orangecat · 1790361482 · focus · HN ↗

                     Boomer health and life expectancy is one of the issues western countries are struggling with now

                     Yes, because old people need expensive health care and are much less productive. Those are two of the major reasons to solve aging. (The third and most important being quality of life).

                     Now imagine everyone lives in perfect health forever.

                     That would be great. Medical costs would fall drastically, and the worker-to-dependent ratio goes way up.

            9. esikich · 1790204657 · focus · HN ↗

               I've long been thinking about making a browser addon to block HN users. You've inspired me to get this done tonight, thank you for the push, your comment is unhinged and I'd rather not ever have to read what you say about anything else.

               1. krapp · 1790204858 · focus · HN ↗

                  If you don't want to do the work look up "HN Comments Owl."

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.