3 ms·

> That said, I do see an issue where some of the smartest people get sucked up by big tech. Instead of working on fundamental advances in image processing they

> That said, I do see an issue where some of the smartest people get sucked up by big tech. Instead of working on fundamental advances in image processing they end up working on beauty filters for Instagram. That can't be right. Can't you say the same thing if you go back 80 years and talk about the smartest minds in the world instead of working on energy for the masses they're working on the atomic bomb?

jmb99 2y ago
Kind of... but the atomic bomb required progressing multiple fields substantially and resulted in some very important technological improvements that are genuinely good (the most stable non-carbon power generation). What is the possible societal-positive outcome of another social media filter? Or improved ad targeting algorithm? Or more attention-grabbing social media feed?
- maccard 2y ago
  > What is the possible societal-positive outcome of another social media filter? Or improved ad targeting algorithm? Or more attention-grabbing social media feed? I could have asked the same thing about a weapon of mass destruction 80 years ago. I don't have an answer for how we can use those things in ways to better society. But I'm not convinced that there are _none_.
  - jmb99 2y ago
    It was well known even to the general public in the 1940s that the mechanism behind the nuclear bomb could generate vast amounts of cheap energy. It was known by nuclear scientists in the late 1930s that massive amounts of energy were released upon nuclear decay, and that chain reactions were possible, but that harvesting the energy for power generation would take some time. I don’t believe there is anyone in the general public or who is an expert in any of the aforementioned fields (which have been around for 1-3 decades) that truly believes they are net positives.

3 ms·

> That said, I do see an issue where some of the smartest people get sucked up by big tech. Instead of working on fundamental advances in image processing they

by maccard 2y ago

jmb99 2y ago
Kind of... but the atomic bomb required progressing multiple fields substantially and resulted in some very important technological improvements that are genuinely good (the most stable non-carbon power generation). What is the possible societal-positive outcome of another social media filter? Or improved ad targeting algorithm? Or more attention-grabbing social media feed?
- maccard 2y ago
  > What is the possible societal-positive outcome of another social media filter? Or improved ad targeting algorithm? Or more attention-grabbing social media feed? I could have asked the same thing about a weapon of mass destruction 80 years ago. I don't have an answer for how we can use those things in ways to better society. But I'm not convinced that there are _none_.
  - jmb99 2y ago
    It was well known even to the general public in the 1940s that the mechanism behind the nuclear bomb could generate vast amounts of cheap energy. It was known by nuclear scientists in the late 1930s that massive amounts of energy were released upon nuclear decay, and that chain reactions were possible, but that harvesting the energy for power generation would take some time. I don’t believe there is anyone in the general public or who is an expert in any of the aforementioned fields (which have been around for 1-3 decades) that truly believes they are net positives.