[eternalban]

> But back then it seemed like a distant and improbable scenario

I am trying to understand this perspective. I was there and nothing seemed improbable or remote. The remoteness was merely a function of technical & economic conditions. Historic precedents, domestic and foreign, past or near present, all pointed the same direction, underlining high probabilities.

Pessimism is rarely the correct inclination, with the exception of questions concerning freedom, power, security, and control. It is appropriately rational to question and highlight worst case outcomes in such cases.

This same pattern is happening yet again ('surprise!') with generative AI. Maybe it is necessary to assure that 'yes, this technology is very cool' as red flags are raised.

It is a very simple thought, backed by unassailable historic evidence: Humans enjoy lording it over other human beings. We should never create systems that permit a tiny tiny subset to realize such base desires. A very simple idea, truly.

[andybak]

I think I framed it at the time as requiring some "V For Vendetta"-esque takeover of democracy. (which in itself no longer seems to remote).

But I now see that things don't need to get comic-book bad for Schmidt's statement to be dangerously wrong.