131–140 of 207 posts
People are not idiots. AI benefits only the ones at the top of the chain, and the 10% of the rest of us. Are you in the top 10%? No, you typically are in the bottom 90%. So we don't want AI, we don't want the top getting richer at our expenses. We just want a job to bring bread home and keeping pushing our store while being "happy". You take that away from us, just so you can double your net worth, and well, bad thin…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mangione was a one-off, and a lot of people understand why he may have done what he did. Just wait until the American version of the French Revolution happens. If AI keeps stealing all the jobs, it will come sooner rather than later.
Revolutions usually are bad. The Who puts it succinctly in Won’t Get Fooled Again “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss” Best case scenario is a new set of elites that end up doing the same shit as the last group, see Russia from 1918 to the present for an example.
Russia is not a good example either, their society has always been a clusterfuck, and probably always will be as long as there are people willing to throw other people put of windows so someone can stay ahead or in power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mangione was a one-off, and a lot of people understand why he may have done what he did. Just wait until the American version of the French Revolution happens. If AI keeps stealing all the jobs, it will come sooner rather than later.
Revolutions usually are bad. The Who puts it succinctly in Won’t Get Fooled Again “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss” Best case scenario is a new set of elites that end up doing the same shit as the last group, see Russia from 1918 to the present for an example.
That's not really a compelling argument against them, considering why they happen. It's like saying "war is bad". I mean, yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> political violence rarely achieves its aims and is much more likely to empower reactionaries. Cursory knowledge of history also shows that, when it comes to violence, logic does not matter. People are scared for their livelihoods. If the rich and powerful keep shouting to the word that they are going to destroy your way of life, there will be violence. It doesn't matter how futile or counterproductive it is.
[flagged]
Who thought it was a good idea to involve AI into a commencement speech? Talk about showing contempt to the graduates!
There's a bit of hypocrisy going on as well. Are you sure 100% of those kids in the crowd never touched AI to help them with an assignment or fake their way through a homework? The feeling I get right now is that we're happy to use the assist when necessary, but hate being told it will replace you completely.
>we're happy to use the assist when necessary, but hate being told it will replace you completely
There is absolutely no hypocrisy in this, and that's even before this adjustment to reality: Usage != happy to use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a deeply sick way of thinking. Mangione was and is a fool, a 3rd rate thinker. His manifesto is muddled, factually mistaken, and by his own words he understood the topic poorly. You only need a cursory knowledge of the late 60s and early 70s to know that political violence rarely achieves its aims and is much more likely to empower reactionaries. There's no quick fix for political change.
>political violence rarely achieves its aims This country was founded on political violence. When the political violence works, we tend to stop considering it political violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a deeply sick way of thinking. Mangione was and is a fool, a 3rd rate thinker. His manifesto is muddled, factually mistaken, and by his own words he understood the topic poorly. You only need a cursory knowledge of the late 60s and early 70s to know that political violence rarely achieves its aims and is much more likely to empower reactionaries. There's no quick fix for political change.
> You only need a cursory knowledge of the late 60s and early 70s to know that political violence rarely achieves its aims Maybe cursory knowledge isn't enough, actually. The Civil Rights Act was ultimately only passed because of political violence. As another commenter said, the literal founding of the country was based on political violence.
Violence by the police against peaceful protestors is what turned public opinion. Violence by political activists did not lead to the Civil Rights Act. You have it backwards.
What I found surprising of the couple of video examples I've seen was not the students' reactions; those were completely predictable. Rather, what most stood out to me was the absolute detachment displayed by the speakers in believing that the students would like to hear their dystopian AI maximalism, and their inability to read the room and understand the reaction from the audience.
One might hope that folks can see the time-honored patterns here. This isn't new. It's just not frequently experienced by those that have earned degrees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a deeply sick way of thinking. Mangione was and is a fool, a 3rd rate thinker. His manifesto is muddled, factually mistaken, and by his own words he understood the topic poorly. You only need a cursory knowledge of the late 60s and early 70s to know that political violence rarely achieves its aims and is much more likely to empower reactionaries. There's no quick fix for political change.
Mangione was a one-off, and a lot of people understand why he may have done what he did. Just wait until the American version of the French Revolution happens. If AI keeps stealing all the jobs, it will come sooner rather than later.
He didn't understand why he did what he did.
> just wait until the American version of the French Revolution happens
We should all be trying to actively prevent that. The French Revolution was a complete failure and mostly succeeded in killing poor people and launching Napoleon's wars.