4 ms·

> Schmidt offered a similar message to graduates: Their fear is rational, but they have the power to shape how AI develops. This doesn't sound like being baffl

by bryan0 5mo ago

> Schmidt offered a similar message to graduates: Their fear is rational, but they have the power to shape how AI develops. This doesn't sound like being baffled by it. It sounds like they are trying to shake the students and say: "fine boo, but you need do something about it." You can't just wallow and complain about it. I mean you can but it's a path to failure.

weard_beard 5mo ago
CEOs: “Do something about it.” Luigi Mangione: … CEOs: “Not like that… I’m not suggesting that it’s a good response. I’m suggesting that this interpretation of what CEOs are saying is wrong.
- ch4s3 5mo ago
  This is a deeply sick way of thinking. Mangione was and is a fool, a 3rd rate thinker. His manifesto is muddled, factually mistaken, and by his own words he understood the topic poorly. You only need a cursory knowledge of the late 60s and early 70s to know that political violence rarely achieves its aims and is much more likely to empower reactionaries. There's no quick fix for political change.
  - slg 5mo ago
    >political violence rarely achieves its aims This country was founded on political violence. When the political violence works, we tend to stop considering it political violence.
    - ch4s3 5mo ago
      I did say rarely, and if you are looking more carefully a pluralistic democracy wasn't really what a lot of the founders were after, especially guys like Jefferson. Sure we're happy we got it, but it wasn't necessarily the aim and we got SUPER LUCKY that Washington decided to step down and retire. The former military leaders of revolutions almost never do that.
      - slg 5mo ago
        > I did say rarely And I think you have that backwards. The nonviolence movements of the mid to late 20th century are the exception more than the rule when it comes to achieving change.
        ch4s3 5mo ago
        There’s plenty of evidence that early states often collapsed because people just left. The dissolution of the USSR was also largely non-violent.
  - yoyohello13 5mo ago
    > political violence rarely achieves its aims and is much more likely to empower reactionaries. Cursory knowledge of history also shows that, when it comes to violence, logic does not matter. People are scared for their livelihoods. If the rich and powerful keep shouting to the word that they are going to destroy your way of life, there will be violence. It doesn't matter how futile or counterproductive it is.
    - joe_mamba 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      - yoyohello13 5mo ago
        I'm quite aware the elites will never be meaningfully impacted. That doesn't change the reality that it's going to happen. I personally am quite afraid of the future, I know deep down me and my family are in for a bad time in the years to come, and nowhere in the world will be safe, other than the bunkers in Greenland of course.
        joe_mamba 5mo ago
        >That doesn't change the reality that it's going to happen. That's why the elites have secret self sustaining doomsday bunkers on private islands. And the mid-upper class are trying to cash in as much as they can now while the going is still good so they can also move their families abroad or to gated communities in safer places of the country to be as far away from the potential riot hotspots as possible when the shit hits the fan. Ultimately it's gonna be every man for himself. Expecting the government to do something for the "little guy", is futile. If they were to do anything for you, they would have done something since the 1970-80's, when they started shipping jobs abroad and eroding your purchasing power to enrich the shareholders.
  - pesus 5mo ago
    > You only need a cursory knowledge of the late 60s and early 70s to know that political violence rarely achieves its aims Maybe cursory knowledge isn't enough, actually. The Civil Rights Act was ultimately only passed because of political violence. As another commenter said, the literal founding of the country was based on political violence.
    - ch4s3 5mo ago
      > Maybe cursory knowledge isn't enough, actually. The Civil Rights Act was ultimately only passed because of political violence. Violence by the police against peaceful protestors is what turned public opinion. Violence by political activists did not lead to the Civil Rights Act. You have it backwards.
      - pesus 5mo ago
        This is the cursory knowledge I'm referring to - it leaves out extremely pertinent details. The Civil Rights Act did not pass until multiple days of rioting following the assassination of MLK. The peaceful protestors were also only one side of the coin. Their impact relied on being an alternative to the other side, which was not peaceful.
        ch4s3 5mo ago
        L.B.J. was instrumental in whipping votes for the Civil Rights Act. In his joint address to congress he said "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long. He then went on to personally lobby individual senators until it passed. It think you're the one who has a cursory understanding here.
  - leptons 5mo ago
    Mangione was a one-off, and a lot of people understand why he may have done what he did. Just wait until the American version of the French Revolution happens. If AI keeps stealing all the jobs, it will come sooner rather than later.
    - quickthrowman 5mo ago
      Revolutions usually are bad. The Who puts it succinctly in Won’t Get Fooled Again “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss” Best case scenario is a new set of elites that end up doing the same shit as the last group, see Russia from 1918 to the present for an example.
      - leptons 5mo ago
        The Who is your evidence? Lol. The French Revolition turned out pretty well for the French people. It needed to happen. And centuries later, the French still don't accept bullshit, they will protest and riot when their protections are diminished in any way. America does protesy and riot too, though not to the same extent, but that will only get worse as things get bad. Russia is not a good example either, their society has always been a clusterfuck, and probably always will be as long as there are people willing to throw other people put of windows so someone can stay ahead or in power.
        ch4s3 5mo ago
        > The French Revolition turned out pretty well for the French people. What? Napoleon marched them off to war "spending 30,000 lives per month". They didn't get a proper Republic until 1870 and turned into miserable colonial overlords. Moreover the 3rd Republic;s foreign policy helped cause WWI.
        deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
        quickthrowman 5mo ago
        > The Who is your evidence? Lol. The French Revolition turned out pretty well for the French people. Many people have made comments that are similar in nature, the line from that song is the pithiest example I could think of to express the idea that replacing terrible leaders usually leads to more terrible leaders. Spending decades fighting wars across Europe under Napoleon was good? I wonder how the troops that invaded Russia feel about the French Revolution lol
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - happytoexplain 5mo ago
    It is sick! It's truly sick. Think about the fact that it is sick, and it is what people are saying. We are sick right now.
    - yoyohello13 5mo ago
      Humans have been killing each other since before recorded history. There is no use pretending it's some exceptional 'sickness'. Rather than dismissing the sentiment as the product of a sick mind, it's more productive to accept it's part of us and try to understand the underlying causes.
- pesus 5mo ago
  People will downvote you because the idea of violence shocks and scares them, but if you steal people's future and strip them of any real (peaceful) options to change things, it becomes inevitable some of them will try to fight back with what few options they do have left.
  - dfxm12 5mo ago
    The status quo of health insurance in the US ("delay, deny, defend") is structural violence. This isn't about fear of violence, they just have different politics...
    - happytoexplain 5mo ago
      Loss of livelihood is in the same category of structural violence as loss of healthcare.
- yoyohello13 5mo ago
  Downvoted... but not wrong. People who think we can automate 50% of jobs without subsequent violence are fooling themselves.
GrinningFool 5mo ago
What chances do the vast majority of those graduates have to shape what's happening? That happens at exec level at the largest companies. Everyone else gets to produce or consume what they decide on.
- UncleMeat 5mo ago
  Exactly. I work at Google and I’m relatively high level. And I’ve got zero input into AI being shoved into every surface. What influence will these grads have?
  - joe_mamba 5mo ago
    Did your generation think you would get to have any influence?
- hbogert 5mo ago
  The same generation that is using those companies for everything. Wanting the benefits but not its downsides.
harimau777 5mo ago
The problem is that average people have no power to do anything. The last year has clearly demonstrated that.
- prewett 5mo ago
  Careful about that. Everybody thinks they are "average people", but I think very few people on this site are "average people". The average person has an IQ of 100, doesn't have a college degree, and makes the median income. The average people did, in fact, do something: they elected Trump. The college educated don't like it, and have the conceit that their views and values are the only real ones, and that those other people are ignorant, ..., who would see things our way if only they were educated. Thus far, the republic is still working okay [1]--the people elected someone who is the antithesis of a statesman, but it was an uncontroversial election. Our republic was not designed to let the average person have much power on a day to day basis. The people's choice was poor, but if the college-educated class wants a different outcome, they should not run candidates who are out of touch with the values of the "average person". Unfortunately, the college-educated have some values that are incompatible with those average-person values. But it just isn't the case that average people have no power. They do, and they have exercised it; you just don't like it. [1] It remains to be seen if it will continue working okay, and there are troubling signs, but I'm optimistic
  - joe_mamba 5mo ago
    Preach. It's strange how the most sane objective and down to earth comments on this topic end up grayed out with no replies. It's like people don't like hearing or speaking about the truth, so they retreat to false feel-good platitudes to make themselves feel better, when the cold harsh calculated nature of the universe continues its course without caring how you feel about it. I think it might have to do with the HN surbase living in a bubble and having long lost the plot, or after the Tramp elections, they now actively deny what "average people" now represents so they downvote arguments like yours out of emotional response without any counter-argument because they have none. Being in denial helps nobody.
jandrese 5mo ago
The students are trying to shape the way AI develops, they're unhappy with the results they are getting which is why they are unhappy with you, Mr. CEO man. They want a world where entry level jobs that can transition into good white collar work still exist. Some place where they might be able to afford housing, insurance, kids, and so on. Preferably one where they don't start out life tens of thousands of dollars in the hole just to have a chance at a decent life.
happytoexplain 5mo ago
They are trying. But there's not a ton they can do. It's obviously disingenuous to point to all negativity and say "you're just wallowing/complaining". There's no reason to word it this way unless you are broadly annoyed by AI negativity.
krackers 5mo ago
>fine boo, but you need do something about it Well they are doing something about it, just not the way the speakers had in mind.
bryanlarsen 5mo ago
And the best mechanism to do something about it they likely have is to influence Schmidt. By booing. Nothing concrete they do will likely have any effect. But Schmidt can affect it, so influencing Schmidt is their best path. A poor path, but the best one.
soraminazuki 5mo ago
I mean you're talking about the guy who said with a straight face, "if you have got nothing to hide, you have have nothing to fear" while building the biggest machinery for surveillance capitalism mankind has ever seen. Also appeared in the Epstein files 193 times btw. https://www.wired.com/story/epstein-files-tech-elites-gates-thiel-musk/ https://www.wired.com/story/epstein-files-tech-elites-gates-...
wolvesechoes 5mo ago
Shaming those that contribute to AI development is doing something about it. Social pressure is one of the tools.

by bryan0 5mo ago

weard_beard 5mo ago

CEOs: “Do something about it.” Luigi Mangione: … CEOs: “Not like that… I’m not suggesting that it’s a good response. I’m suggesting that this interpretation of what CEOs are saying is wrong.

ch4s3 5mo ago
This is a deeply sick way of thinking. Mangione was and is a fool, a 3rd rate thinker. His manifesto is muddled, factually mistaken, and by his own words he understood the topic poorly. You only need a cursory knowledge of the late 60s and early 70s to know that political violence rarely achieves its aims and is much more likely to empower reactionaries. There's no quick fix for political change.
- slg 5mo ago
  >political violence rarely achieves its aims This country was founded on political violence. When the political violence works, we tend to stop considering it political violence.
  - ch4s3 5mo ago
    I did say rarely, and if you are looking more carefully a pluralistic democracy wasn't really what a lot of the founders were after, especially guys like Jefferson. Sure we're happy we got it, but it wasn't necessarily the aim and we got SUPER LUCKY that Washington decided to step down and retire. The former military leaders of revolutions almost never do that.
    - slg 5mo ago
      > I did say rarely And I think you have that backwards. The nonviolence movements of the mid to late 20th century are the exception more than the rule when it comes to achieving change.
      - ch4s3 5mo ago
        There’s plenty of evidence that early states often collapsed because people just left. The dissolution of the USSR was also largely non-violent.
- yoyohello13 5mo ago
  > political violence rarely achieves its aims and is much more likely to empower reactionaries. Cursory knowledge of history also shows that, when it comes to violence, logic does not matter. People are scared for their livelihoods. If the rich and powerful keep shouting to the word that they are going to destroy your way of life, there will be violence. It doesn't matter how futile or counterproductive it is.
  - joe_mamba 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - yoyohello13 5mo ago
      I'm quite aware the elites will never be meaningfully impacted. That doesn't change the reality that it's going to happen. I personally am quite afraid of the future, I know deep down me and my family are in for a bad time in the years to come, and nowhere in the world will be safe, other than the bunkers in Greenland of course.
      - joe_mamba 5mo ago
        >That doesn't change the reality that it's going to happen. That's why the elites have secret self sustaining doomsday bunkers on private islands. And the mid-upper class are trying to cash in as much as they can now while the going is still good so they can also move their families abroad or to gated communities in safer places of the country to be as far away from the potential riot hotspots as possible when the shit hits the fan. Ultimately it's gonna be every man for himself. Expecting the government to do something for the "little guy", is futile. If they were to do anything for you, they would have done something since the 1970-80's, when they started shipping jobs abroad and eroding your purchasing power to enrich the shareholders.
- pesus 5mo ago
  > You only need a cursory knowledge of the late 60s and early 70s to know that political violence rarely achieves its aims Maybe cursory knowledge isn't enough, actually. The Civil Rights Act was ultimately only passed because of political violence. As another commenter said, the literal founding of the country was based on political violence.
  - ch4s3 5mo ago
    > Maybe cursory knowledge isn't enough, actually. The Civil Rights Act was ultimately only passed because of political violence. Violence by the police against peaceful protestors is what turned public opinion. Violence by political activists did not lead to the Civil Rights Act. You have it backwards.
    - pesus 5mo ago
      This is the cursory knowledge I'm referring to - it leaves out extremely pertinent details. The Civil Rights Act did not pass until multiple days of rioting following the assassination of MLK. The peaceful protestors were also only one side of the coin. Their impact relied on being an alternative to the other side, which was not peaceful.
      - ch4s3 5mo ago
        L.B.J. was instrumental in whipping votes for the Civil Rights Act. In his joint address to congress he said "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long. He then went on to personally lobby individual senators until it passed. It think you're the one who has a cursory understanding here.
- leptons 5mo ago
  Mangione was a one-off, and a lot of people understand why he may have done what he did. Just wait until the American version of the French Revolution happens. If AI keeps stealing all the jobs, it will come sooner rather than later.
  - quickthrowman 5mo ago
    Revolutions usually are bad. The Who puts it succinctly in Won’t Get Fooled Again “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss” Best case scenario is a new set of elites that end up doing the same shit as the last group, see Russia from 1918 to the present for an example.
    - leptons 5mo ago
      The Who is your evidence? Lol. The French Revolition turned out pretty well for the French people. It needed to happen. And centuries later, the French still don't accept bullshit, they will protest and riot when their protections are diminished in any way. America does protesy and riot too, though not to the same extent, but that will only get worse as things get bad. Russia is not a good example either, their society has always been a clusterfuck, and probably always will be as long as there are people willing to throw other people put of windows so someone can stay ahead or in power.
      - ch4s3 5mo ago
        > The French Revolition turned out pretty well for the French people. What? Napoleon marched them off to war "spending 30,000 lives per month". They didn't get a proper Republic until 1870 and turned into miserable colonial overlords. Moreover the 3rd Republic;s foreign policy helped cause WWI.
        deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
      - quickthrowman 5mo ago
        > The Who is your evidence? Lol. The French Revolition turned out pretty well for the French people. Many people have made comments that are similar in nature, the line from that song is the pithiest example I could think of to express the idea that replacing terrible leaders usually leads to more terrible leaders. Spending decades fighting wars across Europe under Napoleon was good? I wonder how the troops that invaded Russia feel about the French Revolution lol
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- happytoexplain 5mo ago
  It is sick! It's truly sick. Think about the fact that it is sick, and it is what people are saying. We are sick right now.
  - yoyohello13 5mo ago
    Humans have been killing each other since before recorded history. There is no use pretending it's some exceptional 'sickness'. Rather than dismissing the sentiment as the product of a sick mind, it's more productive to accept it's part of us and try to understand the underlying causes.
pesus 5mo ago
People will downvote you because the idea of violence shocks and scares them, but if you steal people's future and strip them of any real (peaceful) options to change things, it becomes inevitable some of them will try to fight back with what few options they do have left.
- dfxm12 5mo ago
  The status quo of health insurance in the US ("delay, deny, defend") is structural violence. This isn't about fear of violence, they just have different politics...
  - happytoexplain 5mo ago
    Loss of livelihood is in the same category of structural violence as loss of healthcare.
yoyohello13 5mo ago
Downvoted... but not wrong. People who think we can automate 50% of jobs without subsequent violence are fooling themselves.

GrinningFool 5mo ago

What chances do the vast majority of those graduates have to shape what's happening? That happens at exec level at the largest companies. Everyone else gets to produce or consume what they decide on.

UncleMeat 5mo ago
Exactly. I work at Google and I’m relatively high level. And I’ve got zero input into AI being shoved into every surface. What influence will these grads have?
- joe_mamba 5mo ago
  Did your generation think you would get to have any influence?
hbogert 5mo ago
The same generation that is using those companies for everything. Wanting the benefits but not its downsides.

harimau777 5mo ago

The problem is that average people have no power to do anything. The last year has clearly demonstrated that.

prewett 5mo ago
Careful about that. Everybody thinks they are "average people", but I think very few people on this site are "average people". The average person has an IQ of 100, doesn't have a college degree, and makes the median income. The average people did, in fact, do something: they elected Trump. The college educated don't like it, and have the conceit that their views and values are the only real ones, and that those other people are ignorant, ..., who would see things our way if only they were educated. Thus far, the republic is still working okay [1]--the people elected someone who is the antithesis of a statesman, but it was an uncontroversial election. Our republic was not designed to let the average person have much power on a day to day basis. The people's choice was poor, but if the college-educated class wants a different outcome, they should not run candidates who are out of touch with the values of the "average person". Unfortunately, the college-educated have some values that are incompatible with those average-person values. But it just isn't the case that average people have no power. They do, and they have exercised it; you just don't like it. [1] It remains to be seen if it will continue working okay, and there are troubling signs, but I'm optimistic
- joe_mamba 5mo ago
  Preach. It's strange how the most sane objective and down to earth comments on this topic end up grayed out with no replies. It's like people don't like hearing or speaking about the truth, so they retreat to false feel-good platitudes to make themselves feel better, when the cold harsh calculated nature of the universe continues its course without caring how you feel about it. I think it might have to do with the HN surbase living in a bubble and having long lost the plot, or after the Tramp elections, they now actively deny what "average people" now represents so they downvote arguments like yours out of emotional response without any counter-argument because they have none. Being in denial helps nobody.

jandrese 5mo ago

The students are trying to shape the way AI develops, they're unhappy with the results they are getting which is why they are unhappy with you, Mr. CEO man. They want a world where entry level jobs that can transition into good white collar work still exist. Some place where they might be able to afford housing, insurance, kids, and so on. Preferably one where they don't start out life tens of thousands of dollars in the hole just to have a chance at a decent life.

happytoexplain 5mo ago

They are trying. But there's not a ton they can do. It's obviously disingenuous to point to all negativity and say "you're just wallowing/complaining". There's no reason to word it this way unless you are broadly annoyed by AI negativity.

krackers 5mo ago

>fine boo, but you need do something about it Well they are doing something about it, just not the way the speakers had in mind.

bryanlarsen 5mo ago

And the best mechanism to do something about it they likely have is to influence Schmidt. By booing. Nothing concrete they do will likely have any effect. But Schmidt can affect it, so influencing Schmidt is their best path. A poor path, but the best one.

soraminazuki 5mo ago

I mean you're talking about the guy who said with a straight face, "if you have got nothing to hide, you have have nothing to fear" while building the biggest machinery for surveillance capitalism mankind has ever seen. Also appeared in the Epstein files 193 times btw. https://www.wired.com/story/epstein-files-tech-elites-gates-thiel-musk/ https://www.wired.com/story/epstein-files-tech-elites-gates-...

wolvesechoes 5mo ago

Shaming those that contribute to AI development is doing something about it. Social pressure is one of the tools.