4 ms·

How can you be sure Eric Schmidt is telling “the truth” and Wozniak is lying? What’s your rationale and on the basis for such a claim?

by baxtr 5mo ago

itsalwaysgood 5mo ago
The economy
- lukecarr 5mo ago
  And famously, the economy never changes course. Something, something, stocks always go up.
  - itsalwaysgood 5mo ago
    Do you think AI will go away and suddenly businesses will start hiring people back? Or that a competitive startup won't lean on AI to get ahead? Doesn't matter how much stock prices move up and down...AI is here to stay and no amount of booing changes our desires to compete. The world doesn't hold hands with anyone, there is no global consensus, no policy. I recall all the bemoaning when IT jobs started going overseas... businesses always go with the cheapest labor. The world is dog eat dog, and those that prepare for the future are better equipped to deal.
    - watwut 5mo ago
      > Or that a competitive startup won't lean on AI to get ahead? Specifically, with the way both economy and politics is structured, everything will be about big corporations with centralized power. A competitive startup leaning on AI getting ahead will be either destroyed or bought. >The world doesn't hold hands with anyone, there is no global consensus, no policy. It is totally holding hands and helping out - to Schmidts, Trumps, Musks, Epsteins. Just not to poorer people. > Do you think AI will go away and suddenly businesses will start hiring people back? In fact, with well run economy that systematically prevents monopolies, yes it tends to hire people no matter what technological level. Currents state where few super powerful companies are able to push themselves into everything and create monopolies via dumping prices, even as they are not profitable and can count on their friends in administration to bail them out once if all goes pop is the ineffective economy.
      - itsalwaysgood 5mo ago
        I agree with most of your points except the last one. Probably easier to ask a question than argue a point: How eager are you to use Government services? Businesses are only well-run if they make profit: hiring the cheapest labor to produce something people will actually spend money on. And the more frictionless that process, the more our economy advances it. AI fits in there very well. I also want to point out: startups are usually happy to be bought up by the bigger guys.
    - ryandrake 5mo ago
      It's a massive long shot pipe dream, but we might somehow end up with legislators who have backbones and actually represent the people, and they'll enact regulation to reign in the applications of AI, provide a safety net for the millions who will be affected by it, and/or at least find a way to spread the prosperity that comes from AI across the population rather than into the hands of the few. I'm not betting on it, but it theoretically could happen.
      - itsalwaysgood 5mo ago
        I doubt it. There is so little care for monopoly or copyright because AI is a race, as much as it is a tool. And nobody wants to restrict the race. Policy may pass that limits the use of AI for the general public, but the 'whatever it takes' race to 'superintelligence' goes on.
    - amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
      I get it, you think that LLMs are going to fulfill all the threats that it's proponents have been giving us. That's yet to be seen.
      - itsalwaysgood 5mo ago
        If you consider things like Mythos (I know it was partly hype), and cyber security using AI to find old vulnerabilities in open source tools, and others using that information to actively disrupt the economy (this is already happening).... And governments pushing quantum computing, presumably to be first to crack Internet security: it's easier to imagine some of those future threats.
- al_borland 5mo ago
  The economy looked really good before the dotcom crash too. The crash didn’t make the internet go away, but it damped the hype and blind, unchecked optimism that was leading to some rather short-sighted decisions. Right now so many companies are trying to use AI just to use AI, rather than using it when and where it actually makes sense. This is the big thing that drives me, and I think many others, a bit crazy. I don’t expect a bubble pop to make us go back in time to 2022, but I expect it will put an end these the AI mandates, token maxing, and other foolish behavior.
  - itsalwaysgood 5mo ago
    A lot of businesses depend on the Internet. AI will be the same in the future. Not sure what to say about the ups and downs of stock price, or hype cycles.
  - skinfaxi 5mo ago
    > The crash didn’t make the internet go away, but it damped the hype and blind, unchecked optimism that was leading to some rather short-sighted decisions. The crash did not make the internet go away. I don't foresee a world where we will go back to the pre-AI times either. In the same way that post dotcom crash, you would be a fool to not have your business online, I think we will find similar things to be the case around AI. Even if the bubble bursts AI is here to stay and that will have major consequences for labor.
    - itsalwaysgood 5mo ago
      The irony of the dotcom crash is that a lot of 'dark fiber' service started rolling out decades later. Fiber that was laid during the dotcom era. There are lots of datacenters going up in similar fashion. I don't know if they'd have the same utility decades later (very unlikely), but it's interesting.
joe_mamba 5mo ago
Economic, market and product results. Schmidt took Google to the moon financially, speareding projects like Chrome and Android that cemented Google as THE tech titan(couch monopoly cough), whereas Woz was a top HW engineer of his time, but Apple would have quickly failed if he was at the helm calling the shots, instead of Jobs. From which would you take advice, the successful entrepreneur/investor, or the nice hacker geek who was a one trick pony with the Apple computer but hasn't been in touch with the tech economy and jobs market for decades?
- LargeWu 5mo ago
  I want advice from the one questioning whether we should, not just whether we can.
  - joe_mamba 5mo ago
    OK, and who's stopping you? Take your advice from whoever you want. History tends to shows the pragmatists wiping out the luddites out of the gene pool/business market, but you are free to make your choice the way you see fit, nobody is forcing you to follow anyone.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
- jjulius 5mo ago
  Wozniak, every time. Gigantic financial success at the expense of everything Google has negatively impacted isn't something I would be proud of. Everyone defines success differently, and Schmidt's "success" is, frankly, unappealing and gross to myself and, I'm sure, many others. There's a lot more to life and the world than the economy and massive financial gains. Focusing on "economic, market and product results" yet mentioning nothing about the impact to people and customers is how Zuckerberg sleeps at night, and that's ugly to me.
- crispyambulance 5mo ago
  > From which would you take advice, the successful entrepreneur/investor, or the nice hacker geek [?] The nice hacker geek? By the way, the Woz has a net-worth of 140MM, so he's more wealthy that the vast majority of "successful entrepreneur/investors", and also vastly more beloved than virtually all of them. In any case, that's a false dichotomy and actually the wrong question entirely.

How can you be sure Eric Schmidt is telling “the truth” and Wozniak is lying? What’s your rationale and on the basis for such a claim?

by baxtr 5mo ago

How can you be sure Eric Schmidt is telling “the truth” and Wozniak is lying? What’s your rationale and on the basis for such a claim?

itsalwaysgood 5mo ago

The economy

lukecarr 5mo ago
And famously, the economy never changes course. Something, something, stocks always go up.
- itsalwaysgood 5mo ago
  Do you think AI will go away and suddenly businesses will start hiring people back? Or that a competitive startup won't lean on AI to get ahead? Doesn't matter how much stock prices move up and down...AI is here to stay and no amount of booing changes our desires to compete. The world doesn't hold hands with anyone, there is no global consensus, no policy. I recall all the bemoaning when IT jobs started going overseas... businesses always go with the cheapest labor. The world is dog eat dog, and those that prepare for the future are better equipped to deal.
  - watwut 5mo ago
    > Or that a competitive startup won't lean on AI to get ahead? Specifically, with the way both economy and politics is structured, everything will be about big corporations with centralized power. A competitive startup leaning on AI getting ahead will be either destroyed or bought. >The world doesn't hold hands with anyone, there is no global consensus, no policy. It is totally holding hands and helping out - to Schmidts, Trumps, Musks, Epsteins. Just not to poorer people. > Do you think AI will go away and suddenly businesses will start hiring people back? In fact, with well run economy that systematically prevents monopolies, yes it tends to hire people no matter what technological level. Currents state where few super powerful companies are able to push themselves into everything and create monopolies via dumping prices, even as they are not profitable and can count on their friends in administration to bail them out once if all goes pop is the ineffective economy.
    - itsalwaysgood 5mo ago
      I agree with most of your points except the last one. Probably easier to ask a question than argue a point: How eager are you to use Government services? Businesses are only well-run if they make profit: hiring the cheapest labor to produce something people will actually spend money on. And the more frictionless that process, the more our economy advances it. AI fits in there very well. I also want to point out: startups are usually happy to be bought up by the bigger guys.
  - ryandrake 5mo ago
    It's a massive long shot pipe dream, but we might somehow end up with legislators who have backbones and actually represent the people, and they'll enact regulation to reign in the applications of AI, provide a safety net for the millions who will be affected by it, and/or at least find a way to spread the prosperity that comes from AI across the population rather than into the hands of the few. I'm not betting on it, but it theoretically could happen.
    - itsalwaysgood 5mo ago
      I doubt it. There is so little care for monopoly or copyright because AI is a race, as much as it is a tool. And nobody wants to restrict the race. Policy may pass that limits the use of AI for the general public, but the 'whatever it takes' race to 'superintelligence' goes on.
  - amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
    I get it, you think that LLMs are going to fulfill all the threats that it's proponents have been giving us. That's yet to be seen.
    - itsalwaysgood 5mo ago
      If you consider things like Mythos (I know it was partly hype), and cyber security using AI to find old vulnerabilities in open source tools, and others using that information to actively disrupt the economy (this is already happening).... And governments pushing quantum computing, presumably to be first to crack Internet security: it's easier to imagine some of those future threats.
al_borland 5mo ago
The economy looked really good before the dotcom crash too. The crash didn’t make the internet go away, but it damped the hype and blind, unchecked optimism that was leading to some rather short-sighted decisions. Right now so many companies are trying to use AI just to use AI, rather than using it when and where it actually makes sense. This is the big thing that drives me, and I think many others, a bit crazy. I don’t expect a bubble pop to make us go back in time to 2022, but I expect it will put an end these the AI mandates, token maxing, and other foolish behavior.
- itsalwaysgood 5mo ago
  A lot of businesses depend on the Internet. AI will be the same in the future. Not sure what to say about the ups and downs of stock price, or hype cycles.
- skinfaxi 5mo ago
  > The crash didn’t make the internet go away, but it damped the hype and blind, unchecked optimism that was leading to some rather short-sighted decisions. The crash did not make the internet go away. I don't foresee a world where we will go back to the pre-AI times either. In the same way that post dotcom crash, you would be a fool to not have your business online, I think we will find similar things to be the case around AI. Even if the bubble bursts AI is here to stay and that will have major consequences for labor.
  - itsalwaysgood 5mo ago
    The irony of the dotcom crash is that a lot of 'dark fiber' service started rolling out decades later. Fiber that was laid during the dotcom era. There are lots of datacenters going up in similar fashion. I don't know if they'd have the same utility decades later (very unlikely), but it's interesting.

joe_mamba 5mo ago

Economic, market and product results. Schmidt took Google to the moon financially, speareding projects like Chrome and Android that cemented Google as THE tech titan(couch monopoly cough), whereas Woz was a top HW engineer of his time, but Apple would have quickly failed if he was at the helm calling the shots, instead of Jobs. From which would you take advice, the successful entrepreneur/investor, or the nice hacker geek who was a one trick pony with the Apple computer but hasn't been in touch with the tech economy and jobs market for decades?

LargeWu 5mo ago
I want advice from the one questioning whether we should, not just whether we can.
- joe_mamba 5mo ago
  OK, and who's stopping you? Take your advice from whoever you want. History tends to shows the pragmatists wiping out the luddites out of the gene pool/business market, but you are free to make your choice the way you see fit, nobody is forcing you to follow anyone.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
jjulius 5mo ago
Wozniak, every time. Gigantic financial success at the expense of everything Google has negatively impacted isn't something I would be proud of. Everyone defines success differently, and Schmidt's "success" is, frankly, unappealing and gross to myself and, I'm sure, many others. There's a lot more to life and the world than the economy and massive financial gains. Focusing on "economic, market and product results" yet mentioning nothing about the impact to people and customers is how Zuckerberg sleeps at night, and that's ugly to me.
crispyambulance 5mo ago
> From which would you take advice, the successful entrepreneur/investor, or the nice hacker geek [?] The nice hacker geek? By the way, the Woz has a net-worth of 140MM, so he's more wealthy that the vast majority of "successful entrepreneur/investors", and also vastly more beloved than virtually all of them. In any case, that's a false dichotomy and actually the wrong question entirely.