Live data from Hacker News

‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

theguardian.com

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is all a red herring. At least until we crack GAI, at which point paperclip maximizers and other lethal agents of pure technology come knocking. Point being: technology, so far, has never been autonomous. But technology also doesn't grow on trees, nor does it stick out from the ground like a valuable rock. Technology is actively invented, and requires costly reproduction and maintenance. It only sticks a…

A corporation is just a group of humans. There's also clear governance. The CEO makes the decisions and the board of directors has oversight. The shareholders elect the board members. It's ultimately still a group of humans making the decisions, and they are almost always rational decisions, may just not look that way from the outside with only a partial view.

> A corporation is just a group of humans. There's also clear governance. The CEO makes the decisions and the board of directors has oversight. The shareholders elect the board members.

This is true in the same sense that a human is just a group of cells. There, too, is clear governance. The brain cells together make the decisions and the endocrine system provides oversight. Or something.

A corporation is a dynamic system. There are roles with various responsibilities, but no one - not even CEO - is truly free to make decisions. Everyone is dependent on someone else; there are feedback loops both internal, and those connecting the corporation to the rest of the economy. Then there's information flow within, and capability of various corporate organs to act in coordinated fashion. All that is mediated by a system called "bureaucracy", which if you look at it, is nothing but a runtime executing software on top of human beings[0]. There are some good articles postulating that corporations are, in fact, the first AI agents humanity created. They just doesn't feel like it, because they think at the speed of bureaucracy, which isn't very fast. But it is clear that corporations can and do make decisions that seem to benefit the organization itself more than any specific individual within it[1].

--

[0] - You send a letter to a corporation, it is received, turned into a bunch of e-mails or memos traveling back and forth, culminating in the corporation updating some records about you, and you getting a letter in response. That looks very much like a regular RPC, except running on humans instead of silicon.

With that in mind, it shouldn't be surprising that the history of software is deeply tied to corporations, enterprise systems, office suites, databases, forms - all kinds of bureaucracy that existed before, but was done on paper. Software slots into these processes extremely well, because it's mostly just porting existing code, so it runs on silicon instead of humans, as computers are both faster and cheaper than people.

[1] - Compare a common observation about non-profit orgs, where lack of profit motive makes it clearer that, at some point, the whole organization seems to focus on perpetuating itself - even if it means exacerbating the problems it was trying to solve. C-suites and workers both come and go, leaving to be replaced by new hires - yet the organization itself prevails.

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit like Marx in that regard.

Or anarchists or whatever other ideology you have. Great problem descriptions, unworkable solutions. So far, no one has created a well working social order from first principles.

... and is unlikely to ever create one, either. First principles assume ability to understand. I'm not sure humans understand (or have the ability to understand in the future) emerging behavior in groups of humans. And the hubris to believe we can often results in violence because it's one of the simpler AND effective ways to make someone do what you think they should do.

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#73
We had to read this in college, in a lit course on "dangerous discussions".

Marx, Mein Kampf, SNCC manifestos, The Turner Diaries, chunks of the Koran and the Bible, a short look at Juche, some Ding Xiaoping Thought, etc.

And among others, the Unibomber Manifesto. The professor had printouts that he gave to us so that we didn't have to search for it. True for a lot of the documents, actually.

It felt uncomfortably prescient then, and more so now. He makes a lot of good points but doesn't tie them together well, IMO, and his conclusion is kind of weak. Still, his points sting when you look at how we're sliding to a cyberpunk future that we can all see coming but won't make changes to prevent.

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#74

I feel very sympathetic to his complaints about society. But he offers no solutions that would not embarrass a 4 year old. He wanted people, all people everywhere to give up tech. And he never bothered to address either of the obvious issues with this: (a) that whoever didn't would have a huge military advantage over those that did and would soon be in charge and (b) that we can only stay alive in the numbers we curr…

A bit like Marx in that regard.

I would have said Libertarians

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#75

I would urge everyone to read the manifesto directly, and not The Guardian's selective summary, that gives no hints the manifesto has chapters such as "The Psychology of Modern Leftism". https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/national...

[flagged]

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#76

Kaczynski was a loser. He couldn't manage to turn a Harvard degree into a productive role in society so he waged a cowardly war on people who did nothing to harm him. The detailed list of specific injuries to victims here is sad... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

I’d forgotten about the airliner. I wonder how Ted’s Cultural Revolution would have worked out.

Imagine how HN would feel if he’d gone after Ritchie, Kernigan or Linus.

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#77
post #32
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manhunt: Unabomber https://reelgood.com/show/manhunt-unabomber-2017 I loved it too. It used to be on Netflix but they took it down.

It's still up... On Piratebay. hXXps://thepiratebay DOT org/description.php?id=18642823

Was checking if your account name is just coincidence! Thanks for the link

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#78
post #37

I'm a Marxian leftist, but the one time I tried reading his essay I found it incomprehensible, ramblings of an ill person. It could've been about any topic, the style was redundant overconfident rambling. So, I never cared for the overanalysis of this, the media obsession and spectacle is pretending he had anything comprehensible to say at all. I.e., his ideas resonate for people who have not actually read leftist wr…

I’m not in the “he was right” camp but I don’t see how you can call it incomprehensible. It’s certainly not well-written, but it lacks the opaque prose that leftists especially are so fond of, and is easy enough to follow.

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#79
post #37

I'm a Marxian leftist, but the one time I tried reading his essay I found it incomprehensible, ramblings of an ill person. It could've been about any topic, the style was redundant overconfident rambling. So, I never cared for the overanalysis of this, the media obsession and spectacle is pretending he had anything comprehensible to say at all. I.e., his ideas resonate for people who have not actually read leftist wr…

[flagged]

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. In this case you did it with ideological flamewar, but there were plenty of other cases of unsubstantive/flamebait comments, including personal attacks, so no we're not Marxians.

Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. It will eventually get your main account banned as well.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#80
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the sake of argument, 100% agreed. However, that's still irrelevant and does nothing to alleviate the fact that he killed many innocent people. Two wrongs don't make a right, as they say.

Who says that? Parent's talking to toddlers? Surely no one making decisions of consequence in our world. They certainly prefer tit for tat.

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Post reply on HN