3 ms·

Yes yes because the solution to the myopic God complex of the tech industry is more of it. Wow. Really chugging the coolade.

janderson215 2y ago
“Oh, just great. That what we need…more engines. These egomaniacs are going to ruin the world.” -sirsinsalot in 1898
- sirsinsalot 2y ago
  I rest my case regarding the cult thinking.
  - janderson215 2y ago
    The jury has deliberated and demands that you pay my legal fees.
    - fieldcny 2y ago
      Jury decides to change their verdict after being algorithmicly sentenced to 90 days in jail for using the wrong exit in the court building as they were being released from duty by the court officers. CEO of VerdictAI is quoted as saying “shit happens, if they have any value as humans they would have enough money to get out of this, so the AI must be right. One must not lose sight of the fact that we have freed Americans from millions of hours of manual labor with our InmatesAI volunteer workforce.”
      - janderson215 2y ago
        Maybe I’m making assumptions a rather than making an inference, but this seems like the perspective of somebody who wants to stop development of future technology altogether because of bad actors. I’m not saying there aren’t concerns, but risks can be mitigated and precautions put into place to prevent catastrophes. Stopping development because of valid concerns is not the right move. It’s not even the right move to stop developing weaponry which has a stated goal of causing direct harm to other humans. There are people in the world who will attempt to do these things and much more dangerous things recklessly and with far worse intentions than making money, and if those people get technological and military superiority over The West, the world will look very different than it does today. There are a whole lot more ways the world could be worse than it could be better. The current world order is not ideal, but think about what the actual long term outcome is if The West stops.
        FridgeSeal 2y ago
        “Stopping a small number of incredibly over-resourced people from externalising consequences for their sole gain and causing significant and long lasting woe and damage on the rest of us” != “stopping innovation” Nobody is saying “uh uh, no more problem solving”,drawing that conclusion would be uncharitable at best, and “wrong” at worst. The argument is “gosh, maybe we could have some innovation that’s actually useful, and not some polished-turd/enshittification”.
        janderson215 2y ago
        I’m not sure you’re making the same argument as the others in the comments above. I agree with your comment aside from your characterization of the others comments. We’re still a democratic republic that can stop the enshittification of utilities (or whatever the problem de jour is). There are bad actors, but by and large, things are working and continue to be improving. Some things need to be bolstered, some things need to be replaced. Stagnation is not the answer. What would you propose as the solution? All new ideas go through a centralized approval process? That experiment is already being run in other countries. If they start winning, the US will adapt or die.
- ravetcofx 2y ago
  Everyone having an engine surrounded by two tons of metal has done untold damage to our built environment and social fabric. So this isn't even a joke.
  - golergka 2y ago
    Having lived in a country where only lucky few had personal cars, I would not agree at all. Social fabric of a society where people can expect some privacy and personal autonomy in their commute is certainly a better one.
- FridgeSeal 2y ago
  Was this meant to be sarcastic? Because like, this might have metaphorically backfired on you. You know, because of the global warming and such.
  - janderson215 2y ago
    We can innovate our way out of it. I don’t want to imply that anthropogenic climate change is not real, but the topic is moot anyway because world has been through much more dramatic climate change before without the help of humans. Sooner or later, with or without anthropogenic climate change, we would be forced to solve all climate change or die as a species.
- wormlord 2y ago
  Engines replace horses. What does AI replace?
mystified5016 2y ago
So it'd be better for these companies to not pay for their own resources? It's better to let Microsoft consume so much power that it browns out the local grid? And what, we're all suppose to just hope that the utility companies fix it for us with taxpayer bailouts and massively increased residential power bills? I think you were too busy chugging that contrarian kool aid to spend even one moment thinking about what you're arguing for.
null0pointer 2y ago
Dear sirinsalot, we regret to inform you that this post is not in line with our community guidelines and as such we have temporarily suspended your power. Please speak to our AI representative if you wish to appeal this decision.
BuckYeah 2y ago
You thought you wouldn’t find kool aid drinking tech fanboys here? You might need a new compass. Tech companies and their cults are perfectly represented by the South Park episode about Priuses

janderson215 2y ago

“Oh, just great. That what we need…more engines. These egomaniacs are going to ruin the world.” -sirsinsalot in 1898

sirsinsalot 2y ago
I rest my case regarding the cult thinking.
- janderson215 2y ago
  The jury has deliberated and demands that you pay my legal fees.
  - fieldcny 2y ago
    Jury decides to change their verdict after being algorithmicly sentenced to 90 days in jail for using the wrong exit in the court building as they were being released from duty by the court officers. CEO of VerdictAI is quoted as saying “shit happens, if they have any value as humans they would have enough money to get out of this, so the AI must be right. One must not lose sight of the fact that we have freed Americans from millions of hours of manual labor with our InmatesAI volunteer workforce.”
    - janderson215 2y ago
      Maybe I’m making assumptions a rather than making an inference, but this seems like the perspective of somebody who wants to stop development of future technology altogether because of bad actors. I’m not saying there aren’t concerns, but risks can be mitigated and precautions put into place to prevent catastrophes. Stopping development because of valid concerns is not the right move. It’s not even the right move to stop developing weaponry which has a stated goal of causing direct harm to other humans. There are people in the world who will attempt to do these things and much more dangerous things recklessly and with far worse intentions than making money, and if those people get technological and military superiority over The West, the world will look very different than it does today. There are a whole lot more ways the world could be worse than it could be better. The current world order is not ideal, but think about what the actual long term outcome is if The West stops.
      - FridgeSeal 2y ago
        “Stopping a small number of incredibly over-resourced people from externalising consequences for their sole gain and causing significant and long lasting woe and damage on the rest of us” != “stopping innovation” Nobody is saying “uh uh, no more problem solving”,drawing that conclusion would be uncharitable at best, and “wrong” at worst. The argument is “gosh, maybe we could have some innovation that’s actually useful, and not some polished-turd/enshittification”.
        janderson215 2y ago
        I’m not sure you’re making the same argument as the others in the comments above. I agree with your comment aside from your characterization of the others comments. We’re still a democratic republic that can stop the enshittification of utilities (or whatever the problem de jour is). There are bad actors, but by and large, things are working and continue to be improving. Some things need to be bolstered, some things need to be replaced. Stagnation is not the answer. What would you propose as the solution? All new ideas go through a centralized approval process? That experiment is already being run in other countries. If they start winning, the US will adapt or die.
ravetcofx 2y ago
Everyone having an engine surrounded by two tons of metal has done untold damage to our built environment and social fabric. So this isn't even a joke.
- golergka 2y ago
  Having lived in a country where only lucky few had personal cars, I would not agree at all. Social fabric of a society where people can expect some privacy and personal autonomy in their commute is certainly a better one.
FridgeSeal 2y ago
Was this meant to be sarcastic? Because like, this might have metaphorically backfired on you. You know, because of the global warming and such.
- janderson215 2y ago
  We can innovate our way out of it. I don’t want to imply that anthropogenic climate change is not real, but the topic is moot anyway because world has been through much more dramatic climate change before without the help of humans. Sooner or later, with or without anthropogenic climate change, we would be forced to solve all climate change or die as a species.
wormlord 2y ago
Engines replace horses. What does AI replace?

mystified5016 2y ago

So it'd be better for these companies to not pay for their own resources? It's better to let Microsoft consume so much power that it browns out the local grid? And what, we're all suppose to just hope that the utility companies fix it for us with taxpayer bailouts and massively increased residential power bills? I think you were too busy chugging that contrarian kool aid to spend even one moment thinking about what you're arguing for.

null0pointer 2y ago

Dear sirinsalot, we regret to inform you that this post is not in line with our community guidelines and as such we have temporarily suspended your power. Please speak to our AI representative if you wish to appeal this decision.

BuckYeah 2y ago

You thought you wouldn’t find kool aid drinking tech fanboys here? You might need a new compass. Tech companies and their cults are perfectly represented by the South Park episode about Priuses