He has a paper thin understanding of classics, which he then uses a device to sprinkles everywhere to make him appear more clever.

https://fortune.com/2026/02/04/peter-thiel-antichrist-greta-...

I can't find the speech anymore, but his basic thrust is that Tunberg and anyone who thinks that unleashing raw AI on the internet is an antichrist.

They are the antichrist because they are holding back progress.

Despite the US scientific budget being ripped apart by Trump.

▲

trelane 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

His op ed you linked does not strike me as evil.

> his basic thrust is that Tunberg[sic] and anyone who thinks that unleashing raw AI on the internet is an antichrist

I was able to find the speech at https://youtu.be/bNewfkhhwMo

The thrust of his speech was quite different from your characterization. Unless I missed it, antichrist doesn't appear in it at all, and Thunberg is only an example of the extreme eco position (around minute 51:45 iirc), where he is saying we need a balance between the extremes.

▲

0x3f 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm not sure being a pseudointellectual (if that's what he is) would make him evil, would it?

I've seen his 'antichrist' talk as part of headlines out of context and to be honest assumed that this is a rhetorical/hyperbolic device, rather than a literal thing. Is your claim that he actually literally thinks someone is the antichrist? So far he just seems to be someone with a bent against degrowthers?

Is there a specific quote or position that makes him _evil_? Rather than just ill-informed or with an unpopular political opinion? Like he might just believe in tech growth at all costs because he really does think it will benefit everyone, or he might pretend to think that because he thinks it will benefit him at the expense of everyone else. It's hard to tell from what you've provided so far.

	▲	KaiserPro an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> would make him evil I should have been more clear, I am not asserting he is "evil", that is a caricature. Given his background, and where and how he grew up, the couching of his views through evangelical eyes is cynical. I am asserting that he is a dickhead, who believes he's playing 4d chess, whilst cultivating a band of people who you would describe as "odious" at best. Now some people might say "oh he's keeping his viewpoint broad", which is bollocks. He's always been an edgelord who thinks he's Machiavelli. The fact that he keep Karp about, who is so obviously limited as a CEO, and doesn't put a huge fucking gag on him is a leading indicator on what he thinks is reasonable