[flagged]

>The Economist, Silicon Valley's primary submarine, dispels the notion that AI causes unemployment because SV has realized that the peasants get unruly.

???

From a few months ago: https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20260516_DE_...

▲

AnimalMuppet 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I suspect "submarine" was meant in this sense: https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

Note well: This does not mean that I agree with any part of what he said. Just explaining the term.

▲

lioeters 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Every single aspect of that cover is manipulative marketing.

	▲	gruez 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Right, but OP's implication is that they're trying to placate the masses (that somehow read the economist?), even though a few months before they were putting out alarmist covers. You can't have it both ways. If you're arguing that economist being pro-job loss is part of a globalist conspiracy and so is the economist being anti-job loss, then you just created an unfalsifiable statement, a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument.

▲

rent_a_shill 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That was when Silicon Valley still favored the job loss narrative to drive up CEO interest for AI.

Now protests are getting louder and the midterms are close.