3 ms·
Always a bit eyebrow-raising to me how much people focus on Ed’s style rather than his message, which is, broadly, that the tech industry is deeply morally corr
by datsci_est_2015 4mo ago
Always a bit eyebrow-raising to me how much people focus on Ed’s style rather than his message, which is, broadly, that the tech industry is deeply morally corrupted. He struggles to speak about it without becoming impassioned, but I read it as incredulousness rather than baseless hyperbole: “How are you still investing in and working for companies like Meta, despite the overwhelming evidence that they are terrible company that does terrible things to people?”
- minimaxir 4mo agoStyle is relevant to how humans communicate and it's not always about the message, and it can sometimes work against it. AP Style is an editorial standard for a reason. IF I WROTE AN ENTIRE BLOG POST IN ALL CAPS ABOUT HOW AI IS LITERALLY SATAN PEOPLE WOULD JUST THINK I AM A CRAZY PERSON
- tsunamifury 4mo agoYou're right style does matter, and the flat tone of AP is basically extinct now because it was not a meaningful or widely desired style.
- bawolff 4mo ago> his message, which is, broadly, that the tech industry is deeply morally corrupted If that's his message, why is he going on about ecconomic sustainability? Whether or not you have a coherent business model has nothing to do with how morally corrupt you are. Ultimately i agree with the GP post, the article reads like something preaching to the choir. If you already agree it seems natural. If you don't agree it looks like an incoherent rant that is not particularly convincing.
- datsci_est_2015 4mo agoArguing against the business model is a method of exposing the tactics of AI businesses as a short term grift rather than a principled venture. The entire economy suffers when grifters profit - there’s not infinite money to spread around.
- bawolff 4mo agoIs it really a grift when everyone knows? Its not like they are keeping their financials secret. Heck, the main AI companies aren't even public yet, so its largely sophisticated investors getting "grifted". Normally a grift involves tricking someone. The AI situation seems more like a bunch of investors knowingly investing in something very speculative. If they lose their money, while that is the nature of speculative investments.
- overgard 4mo agoElon Musk just got the rules of the NASDAQ changed so he can more or less force index funds to buy his shell company and take money from people's 401k. Feels very grifty to me.
- bawolff 4mo agoThat is a very misleading summary of what happened.
- datsci_est_2015 4mo agoWhat’s the line that separates grift from speculative investment? Does it only require true believers? If Elizabeth Holmes truly believed in her product, would that have made it not a grift? > The AI situation seems more like a bunch of investors knowingly investing in something very speculative. If they lose their money, while that is the nature of speculative investments. This is a bit reductive, especially as the government’s role in shaping American life is reduced and the influence of extremely high wealth individuals impacts every citizen. We’re somewhat losing our democratic rights when Congress does not answer to our interests, and the extremely high wealth individuals directly (FoxNews) or indirectly (X, Meta incentives) manufacture consent. The whole theory of low taxes and light regulations is that high wealth individuals will be incentivized to “create jobs”, like modern Lords of the Manor. When those who essentially steer the direction of the economy take actions that are highly speculative seemingly only to enrich themselves and concentrate wealth further despite public outcry … well, maybe there isn’t a word that elegantly describes that situation, but “grift” is as close as I can muster.
- zetanor 4mo agoThis is the kind of thing that the people in power really don't want you to know, but I'll say it anyway because if we don't get the message out, it's just another free win for the Nazis: a bad presentation is a poor information medium.
- y0eswddl 4mo agobecause ad hominems are easier for the intellectually lazy.