31–40 of 204 posts
Yup, and Bill and Dave are probably the last two that I can really point at to say that’s what they had. True ethics and a genuine desire. Probably also the Fab 8. It may have stopped there.
“The tech industry has a long memory.”
Nope. I think it has no memory and zero penalty for failure. That’s, of course, a double-edged sword.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technology innovation's highest priority has always been to move money from the middle class to the ownership class. Why so many people assume altruistic outcomes is beyond me. Why so many people see any other outcome of OpenAI then increased income inequality is beyond me.
That's pretty demonstrably not true, historically. The explosion of the middle class of the 20th century was because technology still required a huge amount of labor, but it increased productivity to the point where that labor could live much more comfortably on their wages.
While this author is of a younger generation, this really resonated with me as a Gen Xer. I feel there is so much disillusionment among folks that came of age during the 90s because there was so much techno optimism then, and it didn't quite turn out like we envisioned. Two things made me think about this recently: 1. I saw a Reddit post that was titled something like "The 90s were peak humanity. Enough tech to make…
> "I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes." Except this quote is just...internet clickbait. As though technological development is a straight line with easily predictable outcomes. Hell it's even engaging in a bait and switch argument: "I want to art and writing" -> well, AI isn't stopping you from doing those…
1. The obvious thing is that technology (and various things we’ve called AI over time) actually has given laundry robots and dish washing robots. Her follow up tweet said of course she knows and that she's joking, but the joke/criticism relies on those things not existing. I kinda think she just forgot, as we all do, as we take technology for granted.
2. Second takeaway was the same as you, with all the free time we have now—and the free time we hypothetically would get with laundry AI—hard to believe we’re really going to start our great American novel.
3. Her follow up was something like “I don’t actually mean laundry and dishes, I mean it metaphorically”. This just read to me as "I just want things that I want. And don’t want things I don’t want. Don't ask me what those things are." We all do, but it muddles any potential wisdom in the quip if we can just swap laundry, dishes, writing, and art for whatever.
So basically a nothing burger about what AI is today or should be, but loud expression of that nothing anyway. I thought it was more like a spitball take (albeit a tad clickbaity and trolling) and had it gotten lost in the wind it would have been fine, but it going viral said something about current opinion.
If you are grounded in religious faith, your whole life won’t revolve around whatever your job is. The author seems very intertwined with his job and the output. I’m not saying you shouldn’t analyze the meaning of your work, but he seems fairly un-anchored
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technology innovation's highest priority has always been to move money from the middle class to the ownership class. Why so many people assume altruistic outcomes is beyond me. Why so many people see any other outcome of OpenAI then increased income inequality is beyond me.
That's pretty demonstrably not true, historically. The explosion of the middle class of the 20th century was because technology still required a huge amount of labor, but it increased productivity to the point where that labor could live much more comfortably on their wages.
While this author is of a younger generation, this really resonated with me as a Gen Xer. I feel there is so much disillusionment among folks that came of age during the 90s because there was so much techno optimism then, and it didn't quite turn out like we envisioned. Two things made me think about this recently: 1. I saw a Reddit post that was titled something like "The 90s were peak humanity. Enough tech to make…
Tech is now a mercenary in the battle for people's attention and/or a fraction of their monthly money. The number of people in tech grew in absolute terms. That also means the fraction of people giving back to open source also grows and we are getting better open source software. Many however don't give back, they just take.
While this author is of a younger generation, this really resonated with me as a Gen Xer. I feel there is so much disillusionment among folks that came of age during the 90s because there was so much techno optimism then, and it didn't quite turn out like we envisioned. Two things made me think about this recently: 1. I saw a Reddit post that was titled something like "The 90s were peak humanity. Enough tech to make…
Not to mention the whole SEO industry that pushed off smaller, high quality websites for gargantuan mess of word salad articles.
And finally now the present generation of developers are slavishly solving leetcode to get a high TC (total compensation).
We need a whole new generation of hackers to take us out of this mess.
There are some clues, in the Patron, open source, community. I just hope kids make useful software for them and their friends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technology innovation's highest priority has always been to move money from the middle class to the ownership class. Why so many people assume altruistic outcomes is beyond me. Why so many people see any other outcome of OpenAI then increased income inequality is beyond me.
That's pretty demonstrably not true, historically. The explosion of the middle class of the 20th century was because technology still required a huge amount of labor, but it increased productivity to the point where that labor could live much more comfortably on their wages.
Or so is a school of thought of contemporary political economy (read Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu. et. al. )
Example: the cotton gin did not make for a healthier middle class, since the political apparatus barred access to capital (and human rights and civic participation) for so much of the population.
If you are grounded in religious faith, your whole life won’t revolve around whatever your job is. The author seems very intertwined with his job and the output. I’m not saying you shouldn’t analyze the meaning of your work, but he seems fairly un-anchored
Belief in a higher power is not a substitute for finding goodness in what you do. I agree - with rose tinted glasses, there was a period that lasted all the way to shortly after the release of the iPhone where it was reasonable to be (and much of society was) excited about the possibilities of technology. Those times are dead. Financial engineering and the monetization of every piece of user data, ever flat surface,…
But it can be, namely because it’s one path to finding motivation to do good. Not saying it ends up there for everyone, but it certainly can be for some.