Getting together a large number of people to invest large sums in something doesn't work worth squat. Look at the biggest Kickstarter projects--7 figures. If the price of entry is too high it won't happen without concentrated wealth. For an example of something of this sort that's both important and effectively impossible to do with little-guy funding, look at SpaceX.
-
Features
Can a bot run a company?
- Thread starter Axulus
- Start date
Getting together a large number of people to invest large sums in something doesn't work worth squat. Look at the biggest Kickstarter projects--7 figures. If the price of entry is too high it won't happen without concentrated wealth. For an example of something of this sort that's both important and effectively impossible to do with little-guy funding, look at SpaceX.
braces_for_impact
Veteran Member
I would think that depends on the situation. If the AI is making mistakes that most qualified people can point to, fire the programmer(s), scrap the box, and get ya another overpaid tool in an expensive suit. If the economic environment is to blame and despite making an excellent effort the company still implodes, unplug the box and move it on to the next company.
untermensche
Contributor
That's like saying when the computer malfunctions what do you break?
If something goes wrong you address it.
I don't believe you understand how corporations are financed.
And how would SpaceX exist in the world you envision? Where does the money come from?!?!
Makes you wonder where the Apollo project came from, doesn't it.
Elixir
Made in America
That's a collective.
untermensche
Contributor
It's socialism.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
But not one whose members are voluntarily choosing which projects to fund, which was the context of the discussion. Whether government-funding works for some projects or not is besides the point.
Elixir
Made in America
Yah - ergo, it's not a "single big investor".
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
In context of whether concentration of wealth is required to carry out big projects, it is. If government funding is the only other way you can think of to get big projects off the ground, it's not an argument about distribution of wealth, it's an argument whether private sector is optimal in doing some things at all.
Besides, it still doesn't explain why SpaceX exists. If NASA is so great, why is it contracting to SpaceX?
Elixir
Made in America
Not arguing the dynamic - every idea has to be someone's idea, and implementation falls to those who have the means to implement. No argument there. I do question whether all worthwhile projects are big, or all big projects worthwhile. The human race might be better off living in a small tribal format, where neither individuals nor collectives have the means to wreak out-sized damage upon themselves and others. Of course that's just a long view. For now, i like my iPhone. Thank God for making Bill Gates bail Steve Jobs out when he needed it, eh?
SpaceX is far more innovative than Apollo. NASA got to the moon with the application of huge amounts of money. There has been little improvement since, now SpaceX shows up and is clobbering the old ways of doing things.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
A collective or socialism is where the individual workers share in the ownership and control of NASA.