> Mead was famous, but only one of the many voices in very long debate. Yes, this is how voices work. > Whatever people were thinking 90 years ago, it had alr

> Mead was famous, but only one of the many voices in very long debate. Yes, this is how voices work. > Whatever people were thinking 90 years ago, it had already lost its influence by the time of AI's societal debut in the 1980s and is totally irrelevant to AI's impact today. Are you making this argument simply based on the passage of time? I can think of a lot of ideas whose longevity makes 90 years seem a sneeze. > While both may share a mindset, linking Mead to today's techno-bros is a bit of a stretch. If they share a mindset, would that not be an obvious link? Additionally, this article is drawing a connection not just between Mead and techno-optimists (not the same as tech-bros), but between Mead and both techno-optimism and existential risk. That's sort of what the article's preamble describes as the interesting thing.