[zghst]

"why capitalism is like a rogue AI"

These people seriously need to take a step back. At some point you cross the bridge between reporting and actively advertising someone's personal views.

I can't ever trust or read people who constantly try to push an agenda, it's disingenuous. Even more so, when reporting, engaging in personal exchange without the discussing data and statistics, i.e. the facts, you are just allowing yourself to become a personal blog of someone else.

Reporters are supposed to fact check, look for concrete evidence in someone's statements, hold people accountable to their words, and yet certain people get a pass all the time, even the star treatment.

[saulrh]

Yes? This is an interview with an author that was conducted specifically to talk about the book and the material in it. What did you expect?

Unrelated, I'd like to see your argument against that particular line. IMO the comparison is an excellent one; its only issue is that the chosen scope ("the financial market") is too small. Corporations and other bureaucratic entities like governments are powerful cross-domain optimizers with utterly alien cognitive processes and goals. Intelligence, certainly, artificial, might as well call it that.

[zghst]

Well I'd hope that we'd expect better when an author makes outrageous, nonsensical claims.

They are rehashing the book instead of analyzing its claims and assessing its validity. Conveniently, the blame of all the issues are left on the firms instead of the rules of the marketplace, conditions, etc which lead to distortions and structural issues in the market.

[saulrh]

I believe that you're looking for a very different piece than this was intended to be. This is essentially a summary of the book. I don't know what the motive was, but it's probably something like "I believe that more people should hear these ideas". The treatment you're requesting would likely qualify as a doctoral thesis. The writers at Wired do not have the time, nor is it likely that they have the expertise, to create that work, nor does the audience or funding exist to make it responsible course of action for the author.

If you wish to engage on the claim itself, instead of spouting unsupported emotional appeals like "outrageous" and "nonsensical", perhaps you could present a rational argument? I suggest considering the belief I noted earlier about the scope of the argument: The label of "artificial intelligence" is valid for more than just financial organizations and market(s).

[zghst]

It is a poor attempt to reconcile the authors views within the industry that he exists within outside of the scope of the book. If they want to throw softballs fine. We are more than free to criticize his claims, free of a doctoral thesis, mind you.

[deong]

Of course you're free to criticize his claims. It's just pointless to demand someone else do it for you. The interviewer here apparently felt there was a different purpose than they one you'd want. I'm not sure what your recommended remedy for that would be -- forbid him from doing the piece?

If you think the claims are "nonsense", then by all means, go off and write up your rebuttal.

[ufmace]

I'd say this is what we call a Puff Piece. Something like 80% of all news is Puff Pieces or Hit Pieces on various things. There's not much practical difference between a Puff Piece and an ad, or a Hit Piece and an ad for the opposite side of whatever is getting hit.

[edanm]

Calling financial markets AI is wrong in pretty much the only way a word can be "wrong": It's not what most people mean when they talk about AI.

This makes it really easy to make statements that sound deep and meaningful, but really aren't. E.g. "I'm not worried about Artificial Intelligence - we already have artificial intelligence, its called a company. Companies are artificial, and they behave intelligently".

This just isn't what people are worried about. What people are worried about is:

1. Soon we will be able to create software/robots that replace tons of human jobs. This has nothing to do with "companies as an AI".

2. A super-intelligence will be created that is vastly smarter than any human, and can make itself even smarter, but will have different goals than humanity. Again, this is only very thinly related to the "companies as AI" spiel (companies are not superintelligent, they don't actually have coherent goals of their own).

[notthemessiah]

It's not that companies are "operating intelligently" it's that they aren't: they're operating on a principle that maximizes profits (and ROI for shareholders) at the expense of everything else, that's the central guiding principle, and nobody at a publicly traded firm can oppose it successfully, without being voted off the board by shareholders. It's effectively an algorithm that delegates tasks to human operators, and automation is slowly replacing the human component.

[Retra]

If I said "algebra is geometry", you could make the same criticism; it's wrong, because that's not what most people mean by those terms.

But then you see that almost all of the most important mathematical developments in human history make that exact conflation, and that it is all driven by the need to describe human experience in symbolic language... and it does look very deep.

Nobody cares what 'most people' mean. Most people are idiots. Sure, you wouldn't talk like that when you're writing a dictionary, but dictionary writers are not known for making intellectual breakthroughs. That's the difference between description thinking and proscriptive. One allows for creativity.

[dbingham]

Everyone had an agenda of some kind. Whether conscious or unconscious everyone has their own opinions and belief systems which color their perceptions of the world. That includes their perceptions of hard data. There's no such thing as objective reporting -- it's simply not possible for humans to remove their own opinions and feelings from their perception of an event or an issue and report on it in an unbiased way. No matter how hard they may try, their bias will slip in.

This is why I prefer intentional debate as a way of understanding the world rather than poor attempts at "objective" reporting. I always feel far more informed about a topic after I've listened to people with opposing agendas duke it out on an intellectual stage than I do when I've read a supposedly "neutral" article by someone either masking feelings on the topic or who doesn't care about it much. Intelligence Squared US is fantastic for this and I really wish there were more outlets like them.

With that in mind, if you think this article has an agenda, then -- instead of complaining about it -- go find one with the opposite agenda and read that. Then compare their points and arguments.

[kijin]

> I can't ever trust or read people who constantly try to push an agenda, it's disingenuous.

On the contrary, I can't bear to trust people who don't display a clear agenda.

Everyone has an agenda. It's either spelled out, in which case we can clearly see it and proceed to discuss its merits; or it's hidden under a mask of neutrality, in which case it's much harder to notice and counteract. Pretending to be neutral is both disingenuous and manipulative.

Meanwhile, one of the major points that OP makes is that "algorithms" (or heuristics) are the same. All human-made algorithms reflect human biases. Some are easier to notice and counteract. Others are hidden deeper under a guise of neutrality. Either way, it does not help to pretend that there are no biases.

[sp332]

It's just a paraphrase. Here's the quote: "Yes, financial markets are the first rogue AI." I didn't read the paraphrase as an endorsement. It's just a description of what was said.

[nailer]

> This one touches on the effects of Uber’s behavior and misbehavior, why capitalism is like a rogue AI, and whether Jeff Bezos might be worth voting for in the next election.

I'd prefer 'Why OReilly believes capitalism is like a rogue AI'. Having Wired repeat OReilly's statement, rather than attribute it to him, makes it seem like they're not critically examining a very significant claim.

[saulrh]

Why would Wired do that work when they can just recommend that you read the book? Why would you ask Wired to do that when you can just read the book? And why do you believe that you'd find that article any more satisfying than either this interview or the book?

[nailer]

> Why would Wired do that work when they can just recommend that you read the book?

Why do you think it's a significant amount of work to simply quote an author, rather than adopt their viewpoint?

> Why would you ask Wired to do that when you can just read the book?

Justification is provided in the comment you're responding to.

> And why do you believe that you'd find that article any more satisfying

I'd find an article that quotes OReilly rather than adopting his viewpoint more satisfying because it distinguishes OReilly's viewpoint from Wired's. This is the difference between journalism and marketing.

[saulrh]

> Why do you think it's a significant amount of work to simply quote an author, rather than adopt their viewpoint?

Because simply quoting the author won't suffice. The topic is sufficiently complex that a proper treatment requires an entire book chapter plus several preceding chapters of explanation. Paraphrasing or skimming won't work because then you'd accuse them of being even more biased.

This article gives a factual list of the topics the book covers, asks the book's author several questions about those topics, and directly quotes the book's author's responses. Yeah, that's marketing. Anything they could have written in that format would have necessarily been marketing. The only way not to support the book in that format would have been to not publish the article at all. Where do you see Wired "adopting O'Reilly's viewpoint"?

If you just want to never see anyone advertise anything, uh, okay? Every bit ever communicated is an opinion designed to accomplish some goal in the mind of another person. To escape this I suggest renouncing all interaction with other humans and moving to an uncontacted area in the depths of some rainforest.

[nailer]

> Because simply quoting the author won't suffice.

It would establish a separate voice from OReillys and the publication that should be reporting on, not marketing, his new book.

> Where do you see Wired "adopting O'Reilly's viewpoint"?

Already answered multiple times in this thread.

> The topic is sufficiently complex that a proper treatment requires an entire book chapter

Or they could review it. 200 words. There's a lot of books reviewed that way, many far more complex than OReilly's.

[zellyn]

Steven Levy is one of the best writers when it comes to profiles and the gestalt of the tech scene. His stuff is consistently well done. I think you're looking for a different _type_ of writing, perhaps?

[pdimitar]

Maybe you're looking for PhD thesis presentations and not interviews with book authors, then. YouTube will be happy to help.

[s73ver_]

I think you're taking an idealized version of reporting that was never, ever true. Otherwise all papers would be the same, more or less. There has always been agenda pushing in reporting, both in what was reported, and what was not reported.

[banned1]

Hysteria sells.

[pgtan]

Capitalism and AI bashing also. This book will become a hit in Germany.