[YZF]

Same experience. But that's simply because you think you're experienced but the OP knows that you're just deluding yourself. Just kidding.

More seriously, I think this is a true reflection of a cultural phenomena. All discussions have become more polarized. There is a more of a generational divide in perception and discussion. I would also say there is a loss of nuance.

To complicate this even further there is a real diversity of experiences depending on many factors.

I mean we had flame wars on USENET but somehow it feels to me that most discourse even on controversial topics was civil. When we had tabs vs. spaces flamewars (or whatever the fun topic of the day was) everyone knew they were in a flame war (and often acknowledged that). Or maybe I'm just being nostalgic/biased.

I see the anti-AI sentiments in my work place. I think people are genuinely worried/concerned and don't know how this is going to change our world or even where we are exactly. This is also spilling into adjacent areas where people have strong emotional responses to (the rich, the economy, job market, politics, environment etc.).

[SlinkyOnStairs]

> There is a more of a generational divide in perception and discussion. I would also say there is a loss of nuance.

The youth are facing an enormous employment crisis. Many have found themselves completely unemployable through no fault of their own.

And then AI leaders go around to commencement speeches to rub it in.

There's no loss of nuance, the situation has just escalated a lot.

[senordevnyc]

And then AI leaders go around to commencement speeches to rub it in.

This is a good example of anti-AI bias.

This didn’t happen. Out of thousands of commencement speeches across the country, a handful of speakers, none of whom are “AI leaders”, mentioned AI in passing and students booed.

So yeah, I’d say there’s a loss of nuance.

[SlinkyOnStairs]

"This didn't happen, except for that few times where it did happen and massively blew up in the media"

That you fail to understand why those students took such great offense to what was said at those speeches doesn't make it "anti-AI bias".

Those students reacted like that, and I used it as an example, because it's very emblematic of how tech companies and leading figures act.

[senordevnyc]

I'm specifically saying that AI leaders didn't go around making pro-AI commencement speeches. At all.

The absolute closest example is Schmidt, who was last CEO of Google more than a decade before ChatGPT launched, and is now CEO of an aerospace company. No other "AI leaders" gave commencement speeches where they were booed.

So you're blatantly lying and spreading misinformation to feed a negative narrative about the companies and executives in the AI space, then doubling down when called out. Reminds of Vance saying that he's willing to "create stories" in order to draw media attention to his cause-du-jour.

[card_zero]

For the record, besides Schmidt being booed, there was Gloria Caulfield (property development), and Scott Borchetta (music production). Then Jeremy Scott (fashion) tore up his AI-written speech and got cheered for that, and Ronny Chieng (The Daily Show) got cheered for saying "fuck AI" several times.

[senordevnyc]

Exactly.

[ceejayoz]

Quite recently, he was the chair of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Commission_o...

Pretending he's some AI nobody is a bit goofy.

[hunterpayne]

Pretending he has any real insight into AI is also a bit goofy. Listen to him speak. Even his own stories about his time at Google don't show himself in a good light like he thinks they do. There are multiple, multi-billion dollar products that Google made where they had to trick and lie to him to get them released. And he still tells those stories as if he was right to try to kill those products. He's an executive and has no real expertise or insight into LLMs or AI.

[senordevnyc]

Quite recently? It ended in 2021, again, before ChatGPT and this latest boom. I doubt anyone today would hear “AI leaders” and think about Eric Schmidt, no disrespect to the man intended.

[Jblx2]

>I mean we had flame wars on USENET but somehow it feels to me that most discourse even on controversial topics was civil.

I think this is probably a combination of nostalgia and/or USENET prior to 1990 or so?