The title of the original article feels like click-baiut to me. It's covering an act of violence under the pretext that people hate AI.

In fact it's a very sad story about a 20 year old throwing their life away instead of fighting for what he believes is right through non-violent activism and/or regulations.

Last year I wrote an article asking the very question "Who will be the next Luddites?", National Geographics followed-up months later. I'm sure many before, after or in-between covered the same topic. There is truth to it, we will be impacted but let's not forget we went through this during the industial revolution and we should be better equipped than ever to fight using meaningful non-violent acts and operations.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/who-neo-luddites-more-importa...

http://nationalgeographic.com/history/article/luddite-indust...

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism

So, at my BigCo, this rings very true.

We've tried to internally pitch many ideas to the larger organization before but mostly got nothing back.

Finally, one of the various board members talked to my boss and told them that, essentially, it has to be top line growth, not bottom line savings.

We looked this up and it came down to some MBA mumbo-jumbo about how X% of growth is better than that same X% of savings once you run the math (?). Look, I know, that's not how percentages work and I know that savings actually do matter. But in 'I have an MBA-land' the mantra is topline > bottomline.

So, then we started to pitch ideas around growth (new lines, more customer sales, more customers, etc). Which went ... nowhere ... again.

Time goes by again, and another helpful person reaches out and tells us that our ideas are 'not worth considering' as they 'don't meaningfully impact revenue targets'. Again, essentially, just to justify the salary-time that these internal boards spend, the idea has to be net positive. Then it we learned that, no, it has to impact the revenue to 1%. For our BigCo that in the ~$10M ballpark. We do have the customer base to support that, but it is in the revenue ballpark of Atari or the Hypixel servers.

Look, either way, the run-around that I get told is that for AI projects that we pitch internally: 1) Top line growth only 2) ~1% increase in revenue (~$10M).

Now, why anyone would not just go take that ~$10M idea and not just make a company themselves is beyond me, but I don't get paid the big bucks, so who knows.

Still, that is what these BigCos are looking for: Growth in the ~$1-10M range.

And when people showed up at Sam Altmans house.

They got way over their skis on this one. There's a difference between "impressive" tech vs. "operational" tech. That difference usually boils down to prioritizing engineering rigor over marketing.

Unreliable mediocrity, because you simply can never be sure when the damned thing lies/hallucinates unless you double-check everything.

So now you're wrangling an "AI" system and you're doing most of the work you would have had to anyway. ...And when you don't it can get really embarrassing.

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/elite-wall-street-la...

Not the first time, surely not the last. The problem is that so much money is tied up in this thing, and the moment the music stops the bag holders are going to be utterly doomed.

They didn't expect anything else and aren't surprised. "The X industry is discovering..." is one of those stock phrases that people just kinda deploy willy-nilly; the article contains no argument that anyone in the AI industry didn't know or didn't expect this.

If they are in a cult that shuns outside opinions, it could be a surprise when they find out...

>> People hate AI because AI is on a trajectory to replace them and become better than a human. That is the fundamental reality.

Let’s explore this fundamental reality a bit. The “and” necessitates both parts of the clause be true, but would people hate AI if it became better than them but didn’t replace them? That’s an easy no; Big Blue and AlphaGo didn’t cause mass hatred, and machines have been broadly better than humans in some capacity for centuries - that’s literally why we build machines.

Would humans stop hating AI if it replaced them, but wasn’t able to become better than them? Again, no. So the second piece is both incorrect and unnecessary, and what we’re left with is “People hate AI because it’s on a trajectory to replace them,” which is accurate, but not exactly revelatory; many people have already come to this same conclusion, including in this very comment thread. So the good news about your face reality line is that you’ll find a lot of people already facing that direction alongside you.

> Now my company...

Which company is that? Do let us know so I can make sure to never be your customer.

The public also hates the lies and the threats about the tech

>People hate admitting the truth. Everything you said here is utter bs that people say to lie to themselves.

Stares at poster silently from a lotus position waiting for the enlightenment lightbulb

>I’m sick and tired of AI hatred without people facing the truth. People hate AI because AI is on a trajectory to replace them and become better than a human. That is the fundamental reality.

Nu-bie, come, sit, be silent & reflect. When was the last time a tool was made that truly replaced the wielder? Without the wielder, a tool is nothing, without the tool, the wielder still strides as a beacon of divine potential.

>Look don’t get angry at me. If you are on HN chances are you’re most likely delusional and completely wrong about AI.

Continues staring in silence awaiting the moment of enlightenment

>Now my company won’t even hire someone who hasn’t used Claude and I haven’t touched a text editor or ide in half a year. Same with the teeming hordes of experts on HN who said driverless cars will never come. All wrong. People on this site need to stop jumping on these band wagons of stupidity and pointless blame games.

Nu-bie. Does the man disappear because the machine exists? Or is he redirected according to his nature? What nature consumes a man abandoned by his tribe? Surrounded by hoarders of the necessities & means of life? Reflect on this. Reflect also on the potential capabilities of a group of people that through attention to detail, great patience, and acts of artifice on behalf of their fellows once enabled the animation and thinking of rocks. Think very carefully about this.

>Can we talk about that rather than blame corporations for being what they’ve been since before AI? Yeah corporations are psychopaths and corrupt and nobody cares. Same story till the end of time. We are on a cusp of a paradigm shift and your skills as a programmer are about to be utterly trashed because an AI is on trajectory to dominate your skills.

The corporation is as a cup. It's direction is controlled and agency guided by men. It is the oldest form of AI, with us for hundreds of years. The only thing keeping it in check being the occasional times of great strife during which generations of men wrestle the beast, to remind ourselves of wherein our problems truly originate.

>Face reality.

Nu-bie, it is time for you to resume your chores. You have not been enlightened.

Crypto sucks energy and creates no value. It's complete and utter speculative garbage that also destroys the planet.

AI has real value. We can argue about whether the cost is worth the value, whether we're on an exponential improvement curve or not, whether it ends up creating jobs or destroying jobs, but AI is mind blowing science fiction that nobody would have believed you will exist 10 years ago.

> At least crypto does not take away more jobs than it creates

Except sometimes when there's a huge black swan event, or when the bubble pops. Such things can result in significant layoffs even though it's a completely different mechanism.