I heard Schmidt on a couple podcasts[1][2] recently promoting this book, and I found them to be useful for understanding how AI is being discussed among the political and leadership class. I was surprised to see all the negativity here - I thought he made some interesting points, and I appreciated getting some insight into how decision-makers are thinking about this in terms of regulation and geopolitical risks.
I understand the points being made, it's just not what I choose to focus on in the very limited time I'm going to spend engaging with this material. The purpose of my comment was to let any other tech-focused visitors to this site know that I did find some value on the periphery of this book, in case they are equally uninterested in hearing everyone's hot takes on a 98 year old who's already had books written about his life's negative impacts.
Forgive me for not thinking that some unflattering books are a suitable consequence for the "negative impacts" that Kissinger has had on millions of people across the globe
You could say that about a lot of US officials. This obsession with Kissinger is amazing. Do we plan to indict Gorbachev for the Afghanistan invasion ?
At least Andrzej Rosiewicz gave Gorbachev the credit he deserves by performing "Wieje wiosna od wschodu" in front of Mikhail and Raisa Gorbachev in 1988, a song which Nina Hagen also performed a rapping cover of, which is far better than any song ever written about Henry Kissinger:
Agree that the obsession with Kissinger is quite funny. He's not even in the top 10 of my personal villains for US foreign policy, but he never led (or commanded someone else who led) an army and can't be guilty of any warcrimes.
He is a state department hack who has a talent for self-promotion as a "grand strategist" even though there is very little that he was responsible for setting in motion, and much of what he worked on was either irrelevant or ended up getting botched. He did, however, claim many foreign policy victories during a time period when U.S. foreign policy was particularly incoherent and schizophrenic, with America often being on both sides of a given conflict as the various organs of US foreign policy fought with each other and coordinated badly.
One can argue that the visit to China was legit his. Pretty much everything else is clearly P.R. and taking credit for the work of others in order to make a name for himself and pad his enormous consulting fees. IIRC, Kissinger and Associates - his private gig to cash in on his grand expertise - now focuses on doing lobbying for China.
Really Kissinger's main crime was "supporting" various wars or coups, which basically every secretary of state does, since there is no war or coup in which the US isn't supporting one side over another. However our actual ability to force coups is quite limited, take for example our repeated attempts to overthrow tiny Nicaragua or Cuba - here with substantial military aid and funds and even some irregular forces, continued for over a decade, yet we were stimied by these tiny nations.
So people see this obvious impotence, build a mental wall around it, and then just assume that everything else that happens in the world is the result of the CIA pulling the strings on direct orders from people like Kissinger - who is the puppet master of the third world.
This ... is not good history.
US power has always been primarily soft power -- cultural and economic power. We can threaten to cut off aid, impose sanctions, pay bribes, etc. But most coups that that are "US backed" would have succeeded with no actual backing, and often the backing consisted of side payments and giving a greenlight to not impose sanctions on the coup plotters. This was actually what Hussein claimed, that he was given a green light by Rumsfeld. It's only for truly weak and unpopular regimes, or states undergoing existing legitimacy crises, that foreign meddling can be a difference maker.
Meanwhile, those times when the U.S. actually launches invasions of places -- Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo/Serbia, etc. are somehow discounted. Yeah, Kissinger backed violent groups and lobbied to funnel financial and military aid to places that should not have received it, but at the same time he didn't actually lie us into wars, unlike Powell or Albright or even Dean Rusk. IMO these three have much higher body counts, and we are just talking about the post 1960 period in US diplomacy, and haven't even touched things like the Mexican-American war or adventurism or "felling trees and indians". It's just bizarre how much focus Kissinger has gotten, and I really do attribute it to self-promotion.
I refuse to read any books written by people that eat meat. Killing living things is a crime, and supporting the industries involved in that is immoral.
Because this is the HN crowd, I cannot tell if you're serious ("not only do I not support war criminals, I don't support animal murderers") or being snarky. If you're serious, you should also stop using software written by meat eaters, that way none of us sane folks have to read your comments.
I really do believe eating meat is wrong. I don't decide what books to read based on my personal ethical beliefs, especially when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Sorry for the subtlety, I'll remind myself of readers like you in the future.
I apologize as well for the invective tone; I was a little cranky earlier in the day when I responded to this. I have no problem with your beliefs re: meat, the subtlety did indeed go over my head, and this just seems like a textbook case of textual communication fundamentally dampening nuance.
Sometimes I find myself reacting sharply to things in a way that I'd rather not, which I did in this case. My stance on animal rights is an easy button to push to get a majority riled up, and I regretfully reach for it in my worst moments. I was also feeling cranky this morning haha
Seriously, thanks for taking the time to come back to this. You made my night better.
does that all mean that Eric Schmidt is running for office, or is he trying to get into a position of political influence with the Biden administration? (i mean, is it possible that he is using his book as a platform in this effort?)
Well, Biden is trying to improve relations with China and Kissinger is seen as a big friend of China, and he claims to have some influence with the top brass there (China made a big turn towards the west, and Kissingers meetings with Zhou Enlai played some role in it - Mao shaking hands with Nixon was a very big deal in 1971), so there is some alignment ; on the other hand you have a point, Democrats seem to have a very strong negative reaction towards Kissinger.