321–330 of 405 posts
The same people who are being boo'd for being AI tycoons would have been cheered by the same students 4 years ago for just being tycoons. I hope everybody reflects on the fact that it's the same people.
Am I out of touch? No, it’s the children who are wrong.
There was an effort to disinvite him as soon as it was announced that he was the speaker.[1] And then when that failed, activists passed out flyers encouraging students to boo Schmidt during his speech.[2] This all took place before he set foot on campus because of alleged sexual harassment. This wasn't about what everyone wants it to be about. [1] https://tucson.com/news/local/education/college/article_078e... [2] h…
"After my speech for the troops about how we are losing in Iran, my speech to children with cancer about how we've gutted research, sure I can then give a speech to people entering the job market about how AI is ruining the job market" Perfect, that's exactly the message of despair we want to send! (How I imagine picking these speakers goes at every college campus)
what do people need to hear? inspiration or truth? Personally I want the cold awful truth. But I think humanity in general thrives on inspiration and delusion.
It appears you prefer dressing up your feelings in stoicist aesthetics.
Like a snake pretending to be a statue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disruption, by definition, has winners and losers and the losers tend to be more visible, more vocal, and more immediate than the winners.
Who are the winners? Where's the profitable billion dollar industry?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disruption, by definition, has winners and losers and the losers tend to be more visible, more vocal, and more immediate than the winners.
Who do you imagine the winners and losers will be? To the extent AI is useful and disruptive, it's best utilized by people with capital. Which is to say, the winners are few and the losers are everybody else. In this case, the losers aren't just more vocal, they're louder and more visible because they're much more numerous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - people don't actually like music like you, and just want content; non-stop content. This is the big thing that artists are going through right now. They're realizing that most consumers of art don't care about the process or the artist. They just want music as background noise, or an aesthetically pleasing picture on their wall. I wanted to listen to heavy metal songs about office life. I'm not going to spend yea…
The think your last sentence hits the nail on the head: it's good enough for YOU. You've essentially made a novelty song, and I don't believe you're going to be listening to it for years. The problem is when people spend 20 minutes prompting up a song and then attempt to make a career out of slop, and in the process drown out all the new creative works that aren't just remixed slop.
Disagree. Gp didn't make anything.
I told a waiter in a restaurant what I wanted to eat, and I got it. But I did not make the food : )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "boos" are an indication that kids finally understand who to blame. In a dark time, that's a ray of hope: the kids are alright.
And they’re not going to do anything about it, just boo on command and go to work
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As others point out, a song by the band, "The Who". But it's since come to be a phrase to suggest that the upcoming generation (the kids) are going to be okay. As opposed to the more common refrain of "the kids these days…" (and then append some generational gripe like, "are just weed-smoking, lazy, game-playing, phone-staring, TikTok-headed, etc…"
Other than the TikTok-headed part, the phrase could easily be applied to at least as far back as the 80s (NES) depending on definition of game-playing. Before then, there was foosball and pinball. Nevermind the kids that play card/board games. Also, while not staring at a phone implying smart phone use, it was often said about teens having a phone growing out of the shoulder from them constantly being on the phone wi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The think your last sentence hits the nail on the head: it's good enough for YOU. You've essentially made a novelty song, and I don't believe you're going to be listening to it for years. The problem is when people spend 20 minutes prompting up a song and then attempt to make a career out of slop, and in the process drown out all the new creative works that aren't just remixed slop.
> You've essentially made a novelty song Disagree. Gp didn't make anything. I told a waiter in a restaurant what I wanted to eat, and I got it. But I did not make the food : )
At some point you have to be OK with accepting "I made this" as meaning "my vision was executed under my supervision".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since when does retirement mean living off money you didn't labor for? The whole point is the opposite - you can only retire if you have enough resources/income (pension, 401K, gold bars, etc) that you can support yourself without working. In the US we have a problem that a lot of seniors can't afford to retire.
> In the US we have a problem that a lot of seniors can't afford to retire. Gen Z and majority of millennials are completely unsympathetic to this problem. From their perspective, older generations have actively hindered their careers and financial opportunities to the point where they know they'll have to work their entire lives. They also know the US is marching towards financial calamity when Medicare becomes inso…
Obviously there are exceptions, but that's the general perception.