I made a reasonable argument: the intent with Stable Diffusion is to do the same thing that many startups have done, i.e. break the law enough that you establish a dominant market position/raise a ton of money, but create enough externalities that the state has to intervene. Then, bribe politicians to legalize your former law breaking and to lock out any of your competitors. This is what myriad companies in the gig economy have done, for example.
Instead of reflexively spewing a series of ideological non-sequiturs, perhaps engage with what I actually said.
>bribe politicians to legalize your former law breaking and to lock out any of your competitors
Could you name a single startup in the US that has been caught 'bribing' politicians?
And stop drinking the Uber/WeWork/Airbnb/ kool-aid. The vast majority of startups are founded by honest people, and don't rely on breaking laws in order to establish a dominant market position or 'raise a ton of money', I should know, I'm an early employee at a startup with a 'dominant market position'.
Yes you should demonise people for any criminal actions they've actually committed, but please don't demonise them simply for being successful.
All of your comments on this thread sound as though they're made by a college undergrad still in the anti-capitalist/hippy-communist stage.
Grow up! Most things in life are not conspiracies and believing they are will significantly harm your emotional health.
Oh, but of course, only if I set aside the “kool-aid” of citing the examples of the dominant startup players of the past decade.
Perhaps you should, again, grow beyond your ideological name-calling to a rational engagement with the world, which actually involves everything I’ve described.
I'm late to this, but both of you broke the site guidelines badly in this thread. Please don't do flamewars on HN, and especially please avoid tit-for-tat spats, in the future. We ban accounts that get into this sort of thing regularly; it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
You've posted some good comments in other threads, so hopefully this should be easy to fix if you review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the intended spirit of the site more to heart. We'd be grateful!
I did a word search of the linked article you posted, and I didn't see a single incidence of the words 'bribe' or 'bribery' in it.
Or are you claiming that the word "lobby" in the phrase "attempts to lobby Joe Biden, Olaf Scholz and George Osborne" actually meant 'bribe'?
And despite you frantically scouring Google for something to backup your 'bribery' claims with, the above article ended up being the only thing you could find.
So basically, you essentially spent your own time to prove my point. Thanks.
I'll repeat again what I told you earlier: grow up and stop gorging yourself on conspiracy theories.
I'm late to this, but both of you broke the site guidelines badly in this thread. Please don't do flamewars on HN, and especially please avoid tit-for-tat spats, in the future. We ban accounts that get into this sort of thing regularly; it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
You've posted some good comments in other threads, so hopefully this should be easy to fix if you review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the intended spirit of the site more to heart. We'd be grateful!
Do I genuinely believe that startups funneling millions of dollars to politicians in campaign donations, speaking fees, and giving them plush gigs when they leave office is a legalized form of bribery? Yes. Is most of this illegal in other developed democracies? Yes.
I feel like after the whole SBF fiasco this should all be quite obvious…
Instead of reflexively spewing a series of ideological non-sequiturs, perhaps engage with what I actually said.