blueSky1989 5 hours ago

My favorite paragraph from Zuckerberg's writeup:

""" [...] it is surprising that the discourse from many developing AI is so filled with doom. I do not understand why anyone who believes that AI will eliminate most jobs and much of humanity's relevance would rush to build that future. The notion that AI is so dangerous that the only safe path is an extreme concentration of power seems inherently problematic. Historically, hoping that an absolute power will benevolently provide for humanity if sufficiently enlightened has not led to safe or positive outcomes. """

▲

laweijfmvo an hour ago | parent | next [-]

i’ll take a stab: the enormously rich people rushing to build AI and replace everyone’s job will get richer, while everyone else suffers. that’s why.

▲

Melatonic 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Broken clock is right twice a day.

And in this case I think is quite correct

▲

moffkalast 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I do not understand why anyone who believes that AI will eliminate most jobs and much of humanity's relevance would rush to build that future.

He does not understand his own motivations? Like he doesn't want to automate away his entire very expensive workforce and bunker/yacht service staff with robots. There is a pretty clear endgame here.

▲

paxys 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Now go read Zuck’s comments on AI when he fired 8000 employees earlier this year.

▲

frenchtoast8 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Any particular quote you want to share?

▲

paxys 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It is one page of text. I think you can manage to read it and come to your own conclusions without relying on clickbait headlines and out of context quotes. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/23/technology/meta-layoffs.h...

▲

frenchtoast8 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You clearly have an opinion you want to share, otherwise you wouldn't have written anything. Instead of just outright saying what you think, you are being vague. Why? It's true that Meta laid off a lot of people, and blamed refocusing on AI as the reason, but I still don't see how that somehow contradicts GP's quote above.

	▲	xdavidliu 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		one time about 9 years ago I was in the comments of a stackoverflow question, and saying something like "an accessor function need not directly give the underlying structure of the data it's accessing, for example, just because in common lisp, (car nil) is nil and (cdr nil) is also nil, does not mean that nil is implemented as (cons nil nil). The person I was responding to (who I recall was disagreeing with me on the more general principle) said something to the effect of "well you're wrong, in common lisp that's indeed how nil is implemented". I was skeptical and asked for proof of this claim, and they responded clearly angrily with the link to the SBCL repo and said something like "the source code is right there. You can just look it up yourself instead of being so rude. I'm no longer going to interact with you and will delete these comments in 10 minutes." I think I looked through the source code for a few minutes, but wasn't able to find any evidence of nil being pair of itselves.

▲

misiti3780 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

did he fire 8000 people because of AI, or because he over hired in ZIRP like everyone else?

	▲	bogzz 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Or mayhaps he overspent lately in the pursuit of AI that MIGHT replace workers, like everyone else.