Google CEO tries to tell University students to love AI.

[phf@dmv.community]

@nixCraft Perfect example of what being a CEO is all about: Keep on smiling against all odds, lie your pants off as much as you can, be arrogant and preachy BUT also wrap that in a layer of fake kindness because you want to HELP your dumb workers/audience after all, it's not their fault, they just have not had enough coaching from you yet. What a fucking dumbass.

[phf@dmv.community]

@christianrickert Just calling you on your ageist bullshit, that's all.

[mast0d0nphan@beige.party]

@nixCraft Can AI generate tomatoes to throw at this loser's face? Didn't think so.

[loadhigh@bitbang.social]

@nixCraft "Find a way to say yes"

What a dickhead

[bms48@mastodon.social]

@artemis @nixCraft I wonder how much integrity Schmidt demonstrated during his time in the Sun Microsystems management structure. He would appear to be a figure of moral cowardice now.

[dannotdaniel@hellions.cloud]

@artemis @nixCraft looks like school is in session and the speaker is the student here

[lazarou@mastodon.social]

@ApostateEnglishman @nixCraft thinking about that Romanian dictator at the fall of Communism who had the whole crowd before him turn and he just didn't know what to do, the impudence paralysed him.

Didn't they finish him off in the end?

[kierkegaanks@beige.party]

@nixCraft this is don’t be evil era google

[bms48@mastodon.social]

@loadhigh @nixCraft He is proselyting, and it comes off as utter arrogance. Some of us did try. "AI" empirically failed. He seems to be in rank denial of this, which marks him out as being on very shaky psychological ground. And Google's track record of how they treated their "AI" safety whistleblowers is simply disgusting.

[tiredbun@akko.wtf]

@drmorrisj @nixCraft

I just think that trying to make distinction is useless, because the way AI companies earn money is with more investments because of overvalued investments and promises, which is another form of investment speculation, and the way people suffer for it isn't any speculation at all. When people say value of AI companies is speculative, they mean in that sense too.

[skoombidoombis@mastodon.social]

@nixCraft typical. So optimistic but when it starts to sour he’ll shrug and say “oh, well, i’ll be dead soon so it won’t be my problem.”

[rolfbly@mastodon.social]

@ApostateEnglishman @nixCraft

There's an interesting thing I learned about Luddites recently. They weren't against the machinery per se.

They just wanted better working & living conditions and there was no central point where they could make that statement and be heard. So out of necessity, they turned to a decentral target. The machines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite#Historical_precedents

Now then. What can we do to render big tech Ai useless for all to see?

[drmorrisj@mastodon.social]

@tiredbun @nixCraft so... you were in fact defending the equivocation fallacy and have decided that if you cry hard enough somebody will say that you are correct? To bring it back into the realm of logic, the DOT com bubble was also overinflated. Therefore, according to your rules, the internet is speculative.

[fonecokid@c.im]

@nixCraft

[tiredbun@akko.wtf]

@drmorrisj

My idea is, phrasing it like your example - you should not invest into company that is based on promises of ghosts. So called luddites are more concerned with that company is killing people, but they also will be angry that promised ghosts are theoretical speculation, and that investors are going in because of promises and blankets made to look like ghosts.

If that doesn't exactly fit a specific domain-specific definition of speculation and you technically wrong for calling investitions speculative, that doesn't really matter for the point. Maybe not ideal phrasing on the side of @nixCraft, but it's not really a fallacy.

[tiredbun@akko.wtf]

@drmorrisj @nixCraft

Something having or not having speculative or overinflated value doesn't explicitly mean it will forever be that way. Internet is irrelevant here.

Though I recognise I (especially in my first reply, in which I noted that definition you gave still seems to fit AI in my opinion) and nixcraft may be technically wrong for using a specific term instead of another it doesn't exactly mean much for the actual point, is what I want to say.

[drmorrisj@mastodon.social]

@tiredbun @nixCraft The difference between us is simple: I build the models, so I define them by what they do. You dislike the tech, so you define it by how it feels.

​Admitting you are "technically wrong" while claiming it "doesn't matter" is just a long-winded way of saying you are arguing from emotion. Next time you see a "ghost" in the machine, remember the math you could not be arsed to learn.

​Good luck with the content warnings

[recently_coco@mastodon.social]

@nixCraft holy shit. I heard about this, but I figured it was a few boos here and there. Dude got shouted out. Love to see it! Fuck that guy.

[fartnuggets@jorts.horse]

@nixCraft I think he may be confused; he conflated a next token generator with the entire concept of science.

[notthatkindofdoctor@mastodon.social]

@nixCraft
Has he tried giving the speech to chat bots that are pretending to be graduating college? Might be a more receptive and sycophantic audience for him.