[dasil003]

I like Tristan Harris' take on the situation, which is both more nuanced and more actionable. The idea being that the system and incentives are set up to select amoral technologists who will make money for shareholders, so inevitably the ones that come into power will be the ones don't see a problem with replacing all of human labor (because that's the only outcome that can justify the investment made). Reading Cory Doctorow's article from yesterday (https://pluralistic.net/2026/04/11/obvious-terrible-ideas/) was a poignant example of how the incentives are stacked against anyone with a conscience. The only solution, is political action, because the interests of the 99.9% are aligned here. And I say this as someone who loves technology and sees lots of value in AI, but it needs governance, and while in the past I was wary of government regulation in technology, in this case it's way broader and more existential to our civilization than one category of labor being disrupted.

[stego-tech]

That’s an excellent take that’s framed far better than my wordsmithing skills permit at present. Systemically, the incentives are there to maximize long-term harms for short-term gains, and the personalities who thrive in said systems are who currently run the very institutions who could change them. Absent a willful surrender of their agency to change the system in a way that would harm them in a limited financial way while improving the lives of everyone (themselves included), violence is, historically, the only way such toxic incentive schemes have been reformed.

[deaux]

I question how universal that is. There seems to be a meaningful difference between Altman and Amodei, for one. The Whatsapp founder was a decent guy as well, and I believe him when he claims to genuinely regret selling out. I'm sure there's more examples.

I think that framing at is "the system is set up this way" reads too passive. It reads as if it excuses the likes of Sam Altman, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, Larry Elisson among others being despicable sociopaths whose carnage inflicted upon society for pure selfish reasons needs to justifiably be treated as treason against society, with the obvious rightful consequence.

[dasil003]

That's fair. Yes they are all individuals with their own unique perspective and approaches, and we should definitely hold them accountable for their impacts. I'm not saying the systemic incentives absolve them of responsibility, I'm just saying that we can not depend on CEOs of corporations to do the right thing. This is the role of government, but even moreso, elected representatives are people too, so actually it depends on a more fundamental movement of the people en masse to make it known to our representatives that this is way bigger than partisan politics.

[sph]

If I had a dime for every “good guy founder regrets selling out to Evil Corp, despite making billions in the process”, I’d be a billionaire myself

[deaux]

Really? I'd love to know other good examples, because he's the only one I know who has been so public about it including taking several meaningful actions as a result.