[datsci_est_2015]

Always a bit eyebrow-raising to me how much people focus on Ed’s style rather than his message, which is, broadly, that the tech industry is deeply morally corrupted. He struggles to speak about it without becoming impassioned, but I read it as incredulousness rather than baseless hyperbole: “How are you still investing in and working for companies like Meta, despite the overwhelming evidence that they are terrible company that does terrible things to people?”

[minimaxir]

Style is relevant to how humans communicate and it's not always about the message, and it can sometimes work against it. AP Style is an editorial standard for a reason.

IF I WROTE AN ENTIRE BLOG POST IN ALL CAPS ABOUT HOW AI IS LITERALLY SATAN PEOPLE WOULD JUST THINK I AM A CRAZY PERSON

[tsunamifury]

You're right style does matter, and the flat tone of AP is basically extinct now because it was not a meaningful or widely desired style.

[bawolff]

> his message, which is, broadly, that the tech industry is deeply morally corrupted

If that's his message, why is he going on about ecconomic sustainability? Whether or not you have a coherent business model has nothing to do with how morally corrupt you are.

Ultimately i agree with the GP post, the article reads like something preaching to the choir. If you already agree it seems natural. If you don't agree it looks like an incoherent rant that is not particularly convincing.

[datsci_est_2015]

Arguing against the business model is a method of exposing the tactics of AI businesses as a short term grift rather than a principled venture. The entire economy suffers when grifters profit - there’s not infinite money to spread around.

[bawolff]

Is it really a grift when everyone knows? Its not like they are keeping their financials secret. Heck, the main AI companies aren't even public yet, so its largely sophisticated investors getting "grifted".

Normally a grift involves tricking someone. The AI situation seems more like a bunch of investors knowingly investing in something very speculative. If they lose their money, while that is the nature of speculative investments.

[datsci_est_2015]

What’s the line that separates grift from speculative investment? Does it only require true believers? If Elizabeth Holmes truly believed in her product, would that have made it not a grift?

> The AI situation seems more like a bunch of investors knowingly investing in something very speculative. If they lose their money, while that is the nature of speculative investments.

This is a bit reductive, especially as the government’s role in shaping American life is reduced and the influence of extremely high wealth individuals impacts every citizen. We’re somewhat losing our democratic rights when Congress does not answer to our interests, and the extremely high wealth individuals directly (FoxNews) or indirectly (X, Meta incentives) manufacture consent.

The whole theory of low taxes and light regulations is that high wealth individuals will be incentivized to “create jobs”, like modern Lords of the Manor. When those who essentially steer the direction of the economy take actions that are highly speculative seemingly only to enrich themselves and concentrate wealth further despite public outcry … well, maybe there isn’t a word that elegantly describes that situation, but “grift” is as close as I can muster.

[bawolff]

> What’s the line that separates grift from speculative investment?

Are they actively lying to people in concrete ways? Not just, we think this is going to be big, when that is questionable, but do they say AI can do X right now, when objectively it cannot even remotely do X under any circumstance? Lying is what makes the difference.

> well, maybe there isn’t a word that elegantly describes that situation, but “grift” is as close as I can muster.

I think the word you are looking for is capitalism.

Rich people put their money where they think it will generate more money. The economy uses that to determine what to focus on. Sometimes rich people are wrong and are punished by losing a bunch of money. That is how the system is supposed to work. It is far from perfect but traditionally has done better than the alternatives.

[datsci_est_2015]

To your first point about lying, surely that’s not the bar you’d like to set? Misleading investors is pretty much the greatest talent of all of history’s greatest capitalists - were they all grifters? Is it the extent of the lying that matters? Because pure honesty is nowhere to be found in SV.

> I think the word you are looking for is capitalism.

“It” may be a consequence of some countries’ and cultures’ attempt at implementing capitalist policies, but I don’t think that’s anyone’s working definition of capitalism.

“It” being a runaway concentration of wealth being held by few individuals who are not as well-informed and smart as they think they are, exploiting economies of scale and highly financialized systems.

> That is how the system is supposed to work.

The system is supposed to work in the way that we design it to work. Massive speculative bubbles where every rich yahoo is simply looking for an “exit strategy” is far from ideal.

You’re far too forgiving, covering your eyes while the industrialists rob us blind. There’s a culture of grift and exploitation running rampant in the US at the moment, and this sort of apologia only serves to exacerbate.

[overgard]

Elon Musk just got the rules of the NASDAQ changed so he can more or less force index funds to buy his shell company and take money from people's 401k. Feels very grifty to me.

[bawolff]

That is a very misleading summary of what happened.

[y0eswddl]

because ad hominems are easier for the intellectually lazy.

[zetanor]

This is the kind of thing that the people in power really don't want you to know, but I'll say it anyway because if we don't get the message out, it's just another free win for the Nazis: a bad presentation is a poor information medium.