6 ms·

We cannot allow AI to make Big Tech even bigger

47 points by marban 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bdcravens 3y ago
Big-tech billionaire who long ago got paid now wants to keep big tech from growing.
- alfalfasprout 3y ago
  Doesn't mean he's not wrong
- smcin 3y ago
  Steve Case got his big AOL payday two-and-a-half decades ago already, and his investment portfolio doesn't have a dog in the social-media arena (AFAIK), so he has no (serious) conflict-of-interest, and his motive is not to prevent tech growing (which would be unachievable, and even if it wasn't he wouldn't personally gain from that). He's actually a reasonably altruistic tech m/billionaire like Paul Allen, Steve Wozniak, Tony Hsieh (RIP), Jim Clark (Silicon Graphics, Netscape), Mark Cuban, Esther Dyson, Heidi Roizen.
jonathankoren 3y ago
Steve Case? Now there’s a name I haven’t heard in literally over 20 years. What special knowledge does he bring to the conversation, beside being rich, I mean? Seriously. The idea that someone rich now is some sort of philosopher king is just absurd. He’s just a schmo, not a particular informed schmo at that.
hackbinary 3y ago
He is wrong. Everything is tech now. And other things are the value add. For example, if you are a law firm, or a real estate company, and if your tech is not operating then your company is not operating. If your Internet is offline, or your local network, then your business is not running. If your company has a security breach, then you will have massive reputation problems. If you're a small business, you need to have an online presence with Insta, Facebook, and Google maps. It's all 75% tech now. Get with the programme.
- hammock 3y ago
  Isn’t that kind of making the point? Big tech is too big to fail
  - phone8675309 3y ago
    "Too big to fail, but not too big to bail out" was what was learned after 2008. Why wouldn't tech want to get in on that graft?
    - SenAnder 3y ago
      Too big to fail, but also not big enough to be broken up. If the government's priority was safeguarding the financial system, as soon as the crisis passed the big banks would be broken up to reduce risk if any one of them failed. That breaking them up wasn't even discussed in government or media shows how powerful their influence is.
      - phone8675309 3y ago
        "It's a big club, and you ain't in it" - George Carlin
- dimal 3y ago
  He’s not arguing for less tech, just that big tech shouldn’t monopolize AI. Are you saying they should?
- blackoil 3y ago
  Big Tech is term for big tech companies. Meta, Alphabet, MS, Apple and few more, the companies that have monopolized large sections of the Internet/Mobile and tech in general and are using that power + money to expand further into related/unrelated areas.
  - m463 3y ago
    right, not tech itself, but the big tech companies that have platforms and are gatekeepers.
huijzer 3y ago
I find that Taleb’s take on this phenomenon makes the most sense. He argues that due to the internet, everything is now connected and this causes massive power laws. It would be much better if things were decoupled a bit again because distributed systems are much more robust.
nologic01 3y ago
Worth reading even just for this reminder: "The iterative experimentation that eventually birthed the commercial Internet was delayed until the 1990s not because the technology wasn’t ready - the underlying infrastructure had been invented in the 1960s. Rather, the problem was that AT&T convinced policymakers that it was too dangerous to give outside players access to their closed access system."
- NtochkaNzvanova 3y ago
  Corporations were on the Internet before the 90s, so I'm going to assume by "commercial Internet" he means "consumer Internet" (e.g., AOL). I doubt the consumer Internet could have happened before PCs became widespread in the 80s and early 90s, so it's misleading to attribute the delay solely or primarily to regulatory shenanigans by AT&T.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    there was no "internet" at that time. Corporations mainly had private phone systems, and bought computers from IBM or others.. Some network engineers in Salt Lake City Utah sold custom networking, and from Boston.. but those lines connected only to specific others.. Overall, "no"
    - mr_toad 3y ago
      There was definitely internet in the late 80’s, it was just largely confined to academia and a few labs. Two things kept it from going mainstream; firstly the lack of a friendly interface (no web browsers), and cost (back then you could be paying more for 2400bps dial-up than you do for modern broadband).
      - mistrial9 3y ago
        .. then we must agree on a definition of "internet"
mr_toad 3y ago
If you read past the first few paragraphs what he’s saying makes sense. We don’t want corporations using AI regulation to pull up the ladder. A world where we outlaw open source and garage projects from using AI and only allow big corporations to use it wouldn’t be a better one.

47 points by marban 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bdcravens 3y ago

Big-tech billionaire who long ago got paid now wants to keep big tech from growing.

alfalfasprout 3y ago
Doesn't mean he's not wrong
smcin 3y ago
Steve Case got his big AOL payday two-and-a-half decades ago already, and his investment portfolio doesn't have a dog in the social-media arena (AFAIK), so he has no (serious) conflict-of-interest, and his motive is not to prevent tech growing (which would be unachievable, and even if it wasn't he wouldn't personally gain from that). He's actually a reasonably altruistic tech m/billionaire like Paul Allen, Steve Wozniak, Tony Hsieh (RIP), Jim Clark (Silicon Graphics, Netscape), Mark Cuban, Esther Dyson, Heidi Roizen.

jonathankoren 3y ago

Steve Case? Now there’s a name I haven’t heard in literally over 20 years. What special knowledge does he bring to the conversation, beside being rich, I mean? Seriously. The idea that someone rich now is some sort of philosopher king is just absurd. He’s just a schmo, not a particular informed schmo at that.

hackbinary 3y ago

He is wrong. Everything is tech now. And other things are the value add. For example, if you are a law firm, or a real estate company, and if your tech is not operating then your company is not operating. If your Internet is offline, or your local network, then your business is not running. If your company has a security breach, then you will have massive reputation problems. If you're a small business, you need to have an online presence with Insta, Facebook, and Google maps. It's all 75% tech now. Get with the programme.

hammock 3y ago
Isn’t that kind of making the point? Big tech is too big to fail
- phone8675309 3y ago
  "Too big to fail, but not too big to bail out" was what was learned after 2008. Why wouldn't tech want to get in on that graft?
  - SenAnder 3y ago
    Too big to fail, but also not big enough to be broken up. If the government's priority was safeguarding the financial system, as soon as the crisis passed the big banks would be broken up to reduce risk if any one of them failed. That breaking them up wasn't even discussed in government or media shows how powerful their influence is.
    - phone8675309 3y ago
      "It's a big club, and you ain't in it" - George Carlin
dimal 3y ago
He’s not arguing for less tech, just that big tech shouldn’t monopolize AI. Are you saying they should?
blackoil 3y ago
Big Tech is term for big tech companies. Meta, Alphabet, MS, Apple and few more, the companies that have monopolized large sections of the Internet/Mobile and tech in general and are using that power + money to expand further into related/unrelated areas.
- m463 3y ago
  right, not tech itself, but the big tech companies that have platforms and are gatekeepers.

huijzer 3y ago

I find that Taleb’s take on this phenomenon makes the most sense. He argues that due to the internet, everything is now connected and this causes massive power laws. It would be much better if things were decoupled a bit again because distributed systems are much more robust.

nologic01 3y ago

Worth reading even just for this reminder: "The iterative experimentation that eventually birthed the commercial Internet was delayed until the 1990s not because the technology wasn’t ready - the underlying infrastructure had been invented in the 1960s. Rather, the problem was that AT&T convinced policymakers that it was too dangerous to give outside players access to their closed access system."

NtochkaNzvanova 3y ago
Corporations were on the Internet before the 90s, so I'm going to assume by "commercial Internet" he means "consumer Internet" (e.g., AOL). I doubt the consumer Internet could have happened before PCs became widespread in the 80s and early 90s, so it's misleading to attribute the delay solely or primarily to regulatory shenanigans by AT&T.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  there was no "internet" at that time. Corporations mainly had private phone systems, and bought computers from IBM or others.. Some network engineers in Salt Lake City Utah sold custom networking, and from Boston.. but those lines connected only to specific others.. Overall, "no"
  - mr_toad 3y ago
    There was definitely internet in the late 80’s, it was just largely confined to academia and a few labs. Two things kept it from going mainstream; firstly the lack of a friendly interface (no web browsers), and cost (back then you could be paying more for 2400bps dial-up than you do for modern broadband).
    - mistrial9 3y ago
      .. then we must agree on a definition of "internet"

mr_toad 3y ago

If you read past the first few paragraphs what he’s saying makes sense. We don’t want corporations using AI regulation to pull up the ladder. A world where we outlaw open source and garage projects from using AI and only allow big corporations to use it wouldn’t be a better one.