My issue with these types is... If you really believed this, why not run to Congress and every world government instead of a Twitter post that will be buried in 2 days?
If civilization is going to end, why keep your equity? Microsoft, Google, etc for example all know these risks but they don't guide their revenues to reflect that AI will destroy them. Why?
Things don't currently add up, and so far it feels like a lot of alarmism is borderline grift for equity gains. Not to say I have total confidence this will all work out or that I won't be displaced, but as it stands a lot of the alarmist rhetoric doesn't match their actual behavior, which to me is more important than words.
There seems to be a common syndrome that makes the terminally-online types believe that a Twitter post is carved in stone somewhere highly visible in the real world.
Posting something as important (according to them) as this, to Twitter, is exemplary of some kind of delusion that makes me question whether the content of their post is just the same kind of delusion in another form.
Indicative of someone who hasn't touched grass or interacted with enough of a variety of humans in a little too long.
Time will tell. If we don't hear about it again, then they didn't feel strongly enough to take it further.
The issue with the global warming advocates is that they seem to believe that in order to solve global warming we need to make everyone's life worse. That was already a non-starter. It's just terrible marketing.
You say it's for the benefit of "decrepit old men," but the fact is that more and more of the globe is being lifted out of poverty and living more comfortably than ever before. The unfortunate fact is that global warming is an unstoppable force now, humans would have to go extinct for it to waiver.
I'm not saying we should do nothing, but I am saying that your framing is exactly why no one listens to global warming advocacy. We are powerless against it, not because of governments, but because people are living better and no one is going to sacrifice that; and even if they did the math doesn't add up to reverse course. The people that say we should all be sacrificing are often the richest among us that don't even know what sacrifice entails, contrary to your point.
Your framing, that no collective action can ever include reduction or sacrifice, implies this is an inevitable and fatal path we cannot come back from.
I hope you are wrong that nothing requiring sacrifice can ever be accomplished.
The only time I can think of that democratic populations have made large and sweeping sacrifices have been when they’re actively engaged in total war. And even then, it usually has to be mandated and enforced pretty ruthlessly by the government.
We simply did not evolve as a species to make large personal individual sacrifices today in order to benefit billions of strangers decades in the future. Never going to happen.
The options here are technology saving us, or eco-totalitarian governments controlling a huge portion of the world’s population. Nothing else will work.
I don't want to put millions into deeper poverty or poverty at all and I believe pushing that claim so hard is an intentional false dichotomy intended to excuse inaction.
I know you want to paint me as selfish or, like the next commenter, a mislead/naive armchair activist and I understand why that perspective makes things feel simple and either under control or full down-with-the-ship fatalistic. Both of those sound soul soothing in their own way.
Collectively we are in a pickle and I think inaction and poor stewardship is probably not the best we can do to get out of it. If you want to throw your hands in the air and give up because "rich people gonna rich" or you want to let it all happen because you think we should be grateful for the easy life this road has given us even though we stepped on everyone along the way then I understand and that's what you have to do. However, I'd rather we don't give up and instead all figure out how to work together and make things better since we're all in the same boat even if not everyone wants to be.
It would be easier if we all worked together. Humans aren't like that at all so that will never happen but that's not a good enough reason to convince me to shirk the responsibility of trying anyway.
Western activists are ok with this because (a) they don’t imagine that they will be greatly affected and will live a solarpunk luxury lifestyle and (b) they glorify third world poverty and consume media that presents it as a desirable, more authentic way of life, when the truth is that most of those people are desperately trying to claw their way into affluence.
None of the above implies that everyone can achieve a current day Western lifestyle or that current Western lifestyles are sustainable. But average people are going to continue seeking it out, it’s just human nature. Activists who expect people to “just” give up that search are not being realistic.
It's not ignoring that at all, but I challenge you to go back to the person in China or India that suddenly has amenities and tell him they all have to go away, and everything they worked for over 20 years is gone for "the greater good." You're probably only viewing this from a Western view (already wealthy.)
The hysteria around AI and data centers has hit a precipice. It's actually a bit embarrassing now. I am pretty sure there are foreign adversaries that are trying to stop the US, but I also really blame the AI companies for doing the most horrendous job imaginable in pitching AI to the public. Not a shock that people are against something that tech bros have claimed will destroy everyone's lives in the next 5 years. These books were probably going into a landfill without AI companies getting them, regardless. Tons and tons of books go into the garbage every day.
The round just looks better and far fewer people actively use the interface on the watch other than looking at the time or marking a workout. I think the squircle watches like Apple's look odd.
My question is what's to stop Google or any competitor from using watermarks of Claude or OpenAI from degrading the rankings of sites that use it but ignore or even reward sites that use Gemini. Seems like an easy thing to do for competitors, and maybe an unforeseen side effect of these types of things or regulations.
At least in the military aspect, I have heard nothing but great things about them from service member friends/family.
I personally find the panic over Palantir, Data Centers, etc to be largely mass hysteria vs anything else. It has become an omni-cause like Israel (I mean part of the backlash against Palantir is that the CEO is Jewish, just read any internet comment thread on the topic.)
>I mean part of the backlash against Palantir is that the CEO is Jewish
Dont be disingenuous, you know damn well the backlash isn't because he is jewish. Its because of the business relationship with the Israeli government and how Palintirs tech has been used as a tool in Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people.
>just read any internet comment thread on the topic
You're the first comment in this thread or any ive seen, mentioning the CEOs religion.
>I have heard nothing but great things about them from service member friends/family
Really? And what is it that these friends and family members are saying great things about Palintir?
This reads like some grade A marketing bot bullshit
If civilization is going to end, why keep your equity? Microsoft, Google, etc for example all know these risks but they don't guide their revenues to reflect that AI will destroy them. Why?
Things don't currently add up, and so far it feels like a lot of alarmism is borderline grift for equity gains. Not to say I have total confidence this will all work out or that I won't be displaced, but as it stands a lot of the alarmist rhetoric doesn't match their actual behavior, which to me is more important than words.
reply