4 ms·

> but this article (ironic for FT) reads like veiled de-development. Hard to tell if they're singling out AI because it's the current hot thing that everyone's

> but this article (ironic for FT) reads like veiled de-development. Hard to tell if they're singling out AI because it's the current hot thing that everyone's talking about (and afraid of being replaced by), or if they're singling out "big tech" because they're rich and cool to hate on.

scarab92 2y ago
The media A/B tests headlines to see what generates the most clicks. The journalists then learn what their audience responds to and creates narratives around that. The result is the reality and the narrative often differ dramatically. "News" is just "Reality TV" but in text format.
- bombcar 2y ago
  As an aside I've noticed this in real time on Youtube - titles of videos just released changing before my eyes.
gruez 2y ago
Probably the latter. A few years ago the same argument was being trotted out for crypto mining.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  And with good reason - some particularly enterprising miners revived a coal power plant of all things. Other meme coins wasted insane amounts of HDDs and SSDs. I'm glad it's mostly Bitcoin and Ethereum that are left over these days. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/18/bitcoin-miners-revive-fossil-fuel-plant-co2-emissions-soared https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/18/bitcoin-m...
  - bombcar 2y ago
    The underlying assumption in both is that "what the electricity is doing is basically worthless" - for society or by some other measurement. Nobody is writing "providing heat to elderly people in northern cities costs US public health $5.4bn" because most people feel that "keeping people from freezing to death" is worthwhile for society.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >The underlying assumption in both is that "what the electricity is doing is basically worthless" - for society or by some other measurement. The problem is that's basically entirely based on vibes. For crypto opponents it's justified by crypto not doing anything that the traditional finance system can't do, and for AI opponents it's justified by AI only being able to rehash soulless copypasta while stealing jobs. As a result the whole argument just becomes a roundabout way of arguing "[technology] sucks".

scarab92 2y ago

The media A/B tests headlines to see what generates the most clicks. The journalists then learn what their audience responds to and creates narratives around that. The result is the reality and the narrative often differ dramatically. "News" is just "Reality TV" but in text format.

bombcar 2y ago
As an aside I've noticed this in real time on Youtube - titles of videos just released changing before my eyes.

gruez 2y ago

Probably the latter. A few years ago the same argument was being trotted out for crypto mining.

mschuster91 2y ago
And with good reason - some particularly enterprising miners revived a coal power plant of all things. Other meme coins wasted insane amounts of HDDs and SSDs. I'm glad it's mostly Bitcoin and Ethereum that are left over these days. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/18/bitcoin-miners-revive-fossil-fuel-plant-co2-emissions-soared https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/18/bitcoin-m...
- bombcar 2y ago
  The underlying assumption in both is that "what the electricity is doing is basically worthless" - for society or by some other measurement. Nobody is writing "providing heat to elderly people in northern cities costs US public health $5.4bn" because most people feel that "keeping people from freezing to death" is worthwhile for society.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >The underlying assumption in both is that "what the electricity is doing is basically worthless" - for society or by some other measurement. The problem is that's basically entirely based on vibes. For crypto opponents it's justified by crypto not doing anything that the traditional finance system can't do, and for AI opponents it's justified by AI only being able to rehash soulless copypasta while stealing jobs. As a result the whole argument just becomes a roundabout way of arguing "[technology] sucks".