3 ms·
In the old days, the rich didn’t think it was a good idea to burn the atmosphere to produce plausibly deniable child porn.
by yawpitch 5mo ago
In the old days, the rich didn’t think it was a good idea to burn the atmosphere to produce plausibly deniable child porn.
- pixel_popping 5mo agoWhat did I just read? Which rich person is thinking this?
- yawpitch 5mo agoElon (definitely), Sam (albeit obliquely), Donald (nepotistically), Jeffrey (previously), Peter (apocalyptically)… really it’s take your pick, or propose one who isn’t.
- ManlyBread 5mo agoOrange man mentioned out of the blue, wow it's like I am really on reddit.com!
- yawpitch 5mo agoOut of the blue usually means “unexpected”… when asked for a list of rich people with interests in the intersection between generative AI and inappropriate sexualization of the underaged, can the good doctor’s name possibly be anything but expected?
- ManlyBread 5mo agoReally now? You saw a thread about computing being better in the past and your mind immediately jumped to a bunch of "rich child porn producers". Does that sound normal to you? Because to me it sounds like reading something written by a terminally online person who has no idea how unhinged it sounds to regular people.
- yawpitch 5mo agoFunny, you seem to have [mis]read the thread as somehow being about computing being better in the past, when it’s actually about the trend being worse in the present and foreseeable future. Computers aren’t getting faster or cheaper today not because we’ve passed peak computer, but because we’ve collectively decided to let billionaires chase the next AI winter. An economic bubble that represents a colossal societal self-own — the actual effect of which is to generate enormous environmental and economic hardship in exchange for a very small real productivity gain, nothing even vaguely resembling AGI, and an unbelievably large amount of misogynistic wank material — coupled with the geo-political instability and violence required to stoke that fever is the actual reason compute isn’t following the trajectory of the past. Could I have used a less sarcastic way of voicing the basic point that allowing the capitalists to capture and secure all the means of production drives up the cost of those means while simultaneously pushing down the quality of the capital, the product, and the lived conditions of the capitalist’s feed stock, sure… but then I’d really be spending too much time and energy on this throwaway thread (and, ironically, on producing more waste energy for less valuable compute time).
- ManlyBread 5mo agoYep, that's what terminally online means.
- yawpitch 5mo agoWe’re all terminally online, the question is once we’re no longer online at all, who will be to blame? Hint: it’s the rich.
- ManlyBread 5mo agoPlease stop embarrassing yourself with these replies.
- yawpitch 5mo agoIf only I had cause to be embarrassed.
- pixel_popping 5mo agoCan you give a concrete example? That's a very bold accusation (probably criminal if not true). Why would they "promote" this, if they love generating this kind of content, why would they even share it and not just keep it for them between their community? This level of defamation is serious, maybe you could provide a link of any sort that proves they personally do so.
- saltyoldman 5mo agoNot worth engaging with people with RDS (rich derangement syndrome) Their answer will always be communism (as long as they end up as one of the elites). About 8 years ago HN was very pro capitalist, but everyone is tik-tok brained now. It is a lot harder to find people with nuance.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]