If you have a hammer in your shed, are you depriving your neighbor of a hammer? Your neighbor can get their own hammer, and you’d both be better off than if you had to go rent one from the local hammer monger.
Altman is creating the RAM shortage that he points to as justification for hoarding all the RAM. It’s a circular argument. If he didn’t manufacture scarcity, then everyone would be able to have their own RAM.
He’s the only one in this situation depriving anyone of compute power, and it’s because he wants to rent it all back to them. (Yes, Musk, Zuck, Bezos, and Pichai are guilty here too).
I’m sorry, your first statement is a little weird. If there are actually only enough resources to produce 1 hammer, yes, of course you’re depriving your neighbor of a hammer and it’d be better for both of you to share it.
The rest of your argument is obviously fine, just the first part doesn’t make sense.
What if there are enough resources to produce thousands of hammers, but the hammer monger decided to buy up all the production capacity, thereby creating the scarcity being discussed, and then goes on to say that if you own a hammer, you’re depriving your neighbors?
If you have a hammer in your shed, are you depriving your neighbor of a hammer? Your neighbor can get their own hammer, and you’d both be better off than if you had to go rent one from the local hammer monger.
Altman is creating the RAM shortage that he points to as justification for hoarding all the RAM. It’s a circular argument. If he didn’t manufacture scarcity, then everyone would be able to have their own RAM.
He’s the only one in this situation depriving anyone of compute power, and it’s because he wants to rent it all back to them. (Yes, Musk, Zuck, Bezos, and Pichai are guilty here too).
That can apply only to food. Other things mentioned are just stupid. Why we have to use it 100% right now?
I’m sorry, your first statement is a little weird. If there are actually only enough resources to produce 1 hammer, yes, of course you’re depriving your neighbor of a hammer and it’d be better for both of you to share it.
The rest of your argument is obviously fine, just the first part doesn’t make sense.
What if there are enough resources to produce thousands of hammers, but the hammer monger decided to buy up all the production capacity, thereby creating the scarcity being discussed, and then goes on to say that if you own a hammer, you’re depriving your neighbors?
What part of “the rest of the argument is obviously fine” didn’t you understand? :D