Are you saying that "age" is somehow a reason to retire? Most professionals I know who are able continue to work as they age, perhaps with a somewhat reduced work schedule. There's nothing I know of which keeps the mind sharp than the need to solve Real Problems. Figuring out which golf course to try, or which TV channel to choose -- those don't help too much to reduce cognitive decline.

> The objections to non-profits, OSFs, education, healthcare, and small companies all boil down to: they don't pay enough or they're inconvenient. Those are valid personal reasons, but not moral justifications. You decided you wanted the money big tech delivers and are willing to exchange ethics for that. That's fine, but own it.

I don't perceive it that way. In other words, I don't think I've had a choice there. Once you consider other folks that you are responsible for, and once you consider your own mental health / will to live, because those very much play into your availability to others (and because those other possible workplaces do impact mental health! I've tried some of them!), then "free choice of employer" inevitably emerges as illusory. It's way beyond mere "inconvenience". It absolutely ties into morals, and meaning of one's life.

The universe is not responsible for providing me with employment that ensures all of: (a) financial safety/stability, (b) self-realization, (c) ethics. I'm responsible for searching the market for acceptable options, and shockingly, none seem to satisfy all three anymore. It might surprise you, but the trend for me has been easing up on both (a) and (c) (no mistake there), in order to gain territory on (b). It turns out that my mental health, my motivation to live and work are the most important resources for myself and for those around me. The fact has been a hard lesson that I've needed to trade not only money, but also a pinch of ethics, in order to find my place again. This is what I mean by "inevitable prostitution to an extent". It means you give up something unquestionably important for something even more important. And you're never unaware of it, you can't really find peace with it, but you've tried the opposite tradeoffs, and they are much worse.

For example, if I tried to do something about healthcare or education in my country, that might easily max out the (b) and (c) dimensions simultaneously, but it would destroy my ability to sustain my family. (It's not about "big tech money" vs. "honest pay", but "middle-class income" vs. poverty.) And that question entirely falls into "morality": it's responsibility for others.

> Anthropic and OpenAI also created products with clear utility.

Extremely constrained utility. (I realize many people find their stuff useful. To me, they "improve" upon the wrong things, and worsen the actual bottlenecks.)

> You're claiming Google's useful products excuse their harms,

(mitigate, not excuse)

> but AI companies' useful products don't. That's not a principled line, it's just where you've personally decided to draw it.

First, it's obviously a value judgment! We're not talking theoretical principles here. It's the direct, rubber-meets-the-road impact I'm interested in.

Second, Google is multi-dimensional. Some of their activity is inexcusably bad. Some of it is excusable, even "neat". I hate most of their stuff, but I can't deny that people I care about have benefited from some of their products. So, all Google does cannot be distilled into a single scalar.

At the same time, pure AI companies are one-dimensional, and I assign them a pretty large magnitude negative value.