Post

I would like media to care more about the reality that tech tycoons want to kill people than what they’re imagining about AI wanting to kill people. We have multi-millionaires (with support from billionaires!) calling for ethnic cleansing, a thing that has happened in living memory. Not theoretical!

821 reposts2.6K likes

I am way more worried about these tech illiterates making a police state for fascists and drones that hunt down and kill political dissidents who are upset with the rule of the rich than any fairy tale about skynet

Thanks for letting us know what you are getting breathless about. And what you are not… It’s hard to tell out here in the cheap seats; I haven’t done any coding since 1966.

We need to separate outcome from motive. I don’t think any of them want to kill people. I think they want an Ayn Randian world where they can get as rich as they want & not care about victims (empathy is bad). Zuckerberg didn’t decide to hurt kids, he just didn’t care that he was hurting kids. #AI

TL - no insult or rancor intended here, but you should probably read some philosophy. IF you make a decision to not care and take action that harms other people, then that decision encompasses the results of your decision. Including hurting children or murdering people.

If a country, for example, sells a lot of weapons to another country, and that country commits mass murder with those weapons, then, yes, the first country bears some responsibility for that murder. Entire political campaigns have been lost over this. People can try to ostrich their way out of it..

True. And no insult assumed nor felt. One is manslaughter, the other murder. The directness of one’s actions to the outcome & one’s intent are exactly the difference, w murder requiring evidence beyond a reasonable doubt v preponderance of evidence. The outcome is the same for the victims.

"We need to separate outcome from motive" is only a platitude and so we don't actually need to do it. It's not a like a law of the universe or anything, it's just an empty quip used by the powerful to avoid accountability.

Ok, folks, this is too much of a Twitteresque social media as courtroom with posters judge, jury and executioner. I prefer guilt of capital crimes to be established within the laws. These tech leaders are mostly terrible people. I'm not going to become the monster to defeat the monster.

"with posters judge, jury and executioner." hilarious nonsense. who here has the ability to execute a rich tech guy, exactly? mind you, i too would like every one of them to end up at the hague. but that's a SEPARATE topic from whether they want people to die

Many valid points here. Mine was simply this: We all agreed intent matters (murder vs manslaughter w murder requiring a higher burden of proof re: intent) Philosophers disagree, so can we. For the perpetrator the difference in intent matters greatly. For the victims, the outcome is the same.

Dr. Émile P. Torres@xriskology.bsky.social

In case you missed it, here's my article about how completely f*cked the whole "ASI extinction" discourse is right now. If ASI is "misaligned," humanity dies out (they say). But if ASI is "aligned," humanity also dies out. www.realtimetechpocalypse.com/p/the-asi-ex...

David Heinemeier Hansson called for the extermination of Romani people, comparing them to animals. An entire roster of tech tycoons responded by each personally giving him $1 million for his open source software project, even though he’s already wealthy enough to have a personal race car team.

Marc Andreessen and the team at his fund a16z hired — as a *partner*! — a man who has no background in finance, in tech, in startups at all, simply because that man had strangled one of my unarmed neighbors to death on the subway. To send a signal about what they support.

From another direction, it should probably tell us something about how little is required to be a VC (or perhaps just a16z) partner. Shades of "hedge fund analyst" as unemployment insurance for the rich and connected.

Indeed. And it’s currently actually on his blog if anyone that doubts it wants to read it put so plainly about ethnically cleansing London or hunting down ethnic mintories in Europe. I will not link to it but it’s very much public. Other companies are giving people like this millions.

Why should we separate outcome from motive? "I didn't mean to kill anybody" is not a serious defense when you drive drunk, so why does that change when your "vehicle" is paperwork?

you only need to assume that intent matters more than effect if you're trying to build a road to hell some of us don't actually want to do that

I am genuinely impressed at your ability to average out to more than one misconception per sentence.

That's not better. Being indifferent to the human suffering you cause is also very bad. And if they're also motivated by bigoted animosity, then it suggests the outcomes might not be happenstance

I think both types exist in the richest people in the world, but I think many are of the lack of compassionate empathy type. That being said, even sociopaths/psychopaths and your average bad guy often use empathy, that is cognitive empathy...and even some forms of affective emotional empathy.

Climate change is killing people now and it's gonna kill lots more people in the future & they are accelerating it with their gas buildout.

They became exponentially wealthy from mass death in a global pandemic so furthering fascism has become their true business plan. bsky.app/profile/anil...

Anil Dash@anildash.com

I would like media to care more about the reality that tech tycoons want to kill people than what they’re imagining about AI wanting to kill people. We have multi-millionaires (with support from billionaires!) calling for ethnic cleansing, a thing that has happened in living memory. Not theoretical!

What if AI isn't as good as they claim it is? The 1929 stock market crash and the resulting depression wouldn't compare to the economic collapse they would create.

I've encountered two sociopaths in my life (two for certain). Most people are not capable of imagining how they'll behave to other people. And these two I'm referring to are not anywhere close to the these tech tycoons in their ability to inflict harm.

they're trying to justify their actions as a lesser evil but it's getting more and more difficult to come up with a greater evil that's even remotely believable

Writing about sci-fi nonsense is safe and fun for them. It's better for their career to write hand-wringing, spine-tingling tales about killer robots for baby-brained idiots than it is to write actual stories about real people.

They literally already have. Musk wasn’t the only one tinkering with doge. And then the ai & social algorithms … all done by human action.