Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt Booed During Graduation Speech About AI (nbcnews.com) 161
Today former Google CEO Eric Schmidt "was booed multiple times," reports NBC News, "while discussing AI during a commencement speech at the University of Arizona."
Schmidt had started by remembering how computer platforms "gave everyone a voice" but also "degraded the public square... They rewarded outrage. They amplified our worst instincts. They coarsen the way we speak to each other, and that way, and in the way that we treat each other, is in the essence of a society." But then Schmidt "drew a parallel between artificial intelligence and the transformative impact of the computer — and was immediately met with boos." "I know what many of you are feeling about that. I can hear you," Schmidt said, addressing the crowd as many continued to boo him. "There is a fear ... there is a fear in your generation that the future has already been written, that the machines are coming, that the jobs are evaporating, that the climate is breaking, that politics is fractured, and that you are inheriting a mess that you did not create, and I understand that fear."
He went on to argue that the future remains unwritten and that the graduating class of 2026 has real power to shape how AI develops — a claim that drew further disapproval from parts of the audience...
He closed by congratulating the class and offering them closing words. "The future is not yet finished. It is now your turn to shape it."
404 Media shared a video on YouTube of the crowd's booing — and what Schmidt said that provoked them:
SCHMIDT: "If you don't care about science that's okay because AI is going to touch everything else as well. [Very loud booing] Whatever path you choose, AI will become part of how work is done..."
"You can now assemble a team of AI agents to help you with the parts that you could never accomplish on your own. [Loud booing] When someone offers you a seat on the rocket ship, you do not ask which seat. You just get on... The rocket ship is here."
Schmidt had started by remembering how computer platforms "gave everyone a voice" but also "degraded the public square... They rewarded outrage. They amplified our worst instincts. They coarsen the way we speak to each other, and that way, and in the way that we treat each other, is in the essence of a society." But then Schmidt "drew a parallel between artificial intelligence and the transformative impact of the computer — and was immediately met with boos." "I know what many of you are feeling about that. I can hear you," Schmidt said, addressing the crowd as many continued to boo him. "There is a fear ... there is a fear in your generation that the future has already been written, that the machines are coming, that the jobs are evaporating, that the climate is breaking, that politics is fractured, and that you are inheriting a mess that you did not create, and I understand that fear."
He went on to argue that the future remains unwritten and that the graduating class of 2026 has real power to shape how AI develops — a claim that drew further disapproval from parts of the audience...
He closed by congratulating the class and offering them closing words. "The future is not yet finished. It is now your turn to shape it."
404 Media shared a video on YouTube of the crowd's booing — and what Schmidt said that provoked them:
SCHMIDT: "If you don't care about science that's okay because AI is going to touch everything else as well. [Very loud booing] Whatever path you choose, AI will become part of how work is done..."
"You can now assemble a team of AI agents to help you with the parts that you could never accomplish on your own. [Loud booing] When someone offers you a seat on the rocket ship, you do not ask which seat. You just get on... The rocket ship is here."
BOOOOOO (Score:2, Funny)
Booooooooo!!!!
Re: Boo me too, then. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Boo me too, then. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Blue collar trades are the first jobs that are being phased out, and it's already started. One of the largest coal mines in China is almost completely automated (and electric) through the combination of AI, robotics, and 5/6G technologies. AI-controlled robots are pouring concrete, running excavators, walking security guard patrols, monitoring oil platforms, washing dishes, and much, much more. There are a lot more blue collar workers than white collar ones, and our stupid system of "work or starve" is e
Re: Boo me too, then. (Score:2)
Re: Boo me too, then. (Score:2)
Re: Boo me too, then. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe Bezos doesn't need hundreds of billions... maybe take the top $150 billion and use that to fund UBI.
Maybe the super rich don't need to keep their money offshore... offshore-stashed money could also become UBI funding.
UBI shouldn't be like $2k a month... it should be enough to survive off of (rent, food, utilities, maybe a little extra for a rare splurge)... and, if you want more money, find something.
Re: Boo me too, then. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why couldn't a law be written that these billionaires (even trillionaires) don't need their excesses? Set an upper limit on how much someone realistically needs or something.
Who said anything about ask? Consider all that money stashed offshore to be a tax dodge tactic, IRS can take it and put it towards UBI.
Re: Boo me too, then. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And, where do we do this?
In America, where you're going to pay people $90k a year to monitor a bunch of machines?
No, we build the machines in China for the cheap labor; mine silica in the US, make it into blanks here, ship blanks to China's fab facilities, they do the lithography and assembly, and sell them back to the US for about 8X more than it cost to do everything else.
And, chip fabs aren't going to just hire some idiot because he waves his degree in their face... they want people who have tons of expe
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Boo me too, then. (Score:5, Insightful)
None of this shit is inevitable. The people saying it's inevitable want it to be inevitable, so they're trying to make it inevitable by claiming it's inevitable at every opportunity, so everyone will just resign themselves to its inevitability and just start using it.
Further, AI aside, in the vast sweep of history, technology has not been some unalloyed good. Everything's a trade-off. Plumbing and electricity and automobiles and airplanes and semiconductors have got their upsides and downsides. Almost everybody likes medicine, sure, but fewer and fewer people can afford it. The major quantitative benefit of technology has been to let us support an ever larger population. But then the population always grows to take up the extra capacity, and then you're back in the same boat but it's more crowded and leakier.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost everybody likes medicine, sure, but fewer and fewer people can afford it
That is an issue nothing to do with medicine, or the medical industry. *looks over at the epi-pen on the desk next to me which I can buy at the local pharmacy for $14.95*
Re: (Score:2)
None of this shit is inevitable.
Power has been concentrated and that power wants this. It absolutely is inevitable; however, it is not stable or maintainable, so it will fail. VERY DISASTROUSLY, but it will fail just as inevitably as it will arrive.
Re: (Score:2)
Banning powerful tech just ensures that your competitors have it and you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Banning powerful tech just ensures that your competitors have it and you don't.
Or perhaps your competitors will find out that "more compute" is a dead-end after wasting all their resources.
Re: (Score:2)
That will work about as well as banning cloning will. Anyone wanting access to an AI will just go to a district where it's allowed, and when your region collapses into poverty and irrelevance they'll take you over.
Re: (Score:2)
Political pressure = one guy waving a sign in front of Congress?
The Electoral College can put some other Butt In Chair, but why would they ban AI? The money saved by the companies not paying lowly meat-sacks goes toward election campaigns for people who are pro-AI.
Now that companies have started canning entire departments in favor of AI, if they banned AI tomorrow, nobody is going to want to work there because they know how little the company gives a crap about their employees.
Re:Boo me too, then. (Score:5, Insightful)
The way Trump is leading the USA to disaster, yep... the future will belong to China.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how our Pres. and VP votes are only the popular vote... the EC decides the winner of those two seats, so you can blame them.
Re: (Score:2)
Or we could use political pressure to ban AI.
Then the future will belong to China.
Better start learning Mandarin.
Just get your Chinese AI on your Chinese device to auto-translate it.
Re:Boo me too, then. (Score:4, Interesting)
Tech is not what fixes the problems of today. Tech, in fact, is making problems like inequality and environmental destruction worse, not better.
We need sane politicians who care about real issues and not bullshit cultural war issues, and who have the political will to push through positive change.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, of course not. But let's not pretend that AI is a net positive.
Electricity was a net positive. Computers were a net positive. The Internet... I think the jury is still out on that one. AI... definitely a net negative because the AI industry is fraudulent, immoral and dangerous [skoll.ca].
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are fraudulent, immoral, and dangerous. The AI industry is no different than any other industry in that regard. As Alfred Whitehead famously wrote (paraphrased) "All great ideas enter into the world with disgusting alliances."
AI is just a new tool for us to use. How we use it is up to us. The fact that some will misuse it does not negate the benefits that others could bring by using it well.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are fraudulent, immoral, and dangerous
I assume you skimmed the article and did not read any of the many, many supporting links to sources that I provided in the article.
The Generative AI industry is greatly magnifying the harms caused by greed. It's not a neutral tool, much as its boosters like to imply. The very foundations of the industry are based on exploitation and theft. Generative AI is therefore the fruit of a poisoned seed and is inherently negative.
Re: (Score:2)
Linking to your own blog as proof your post is correct is considered bad form.
Re: (Score:2)
Says who? Also, what part of many supporting links to sources that I provided in the article was unclear?
Re: (Score:2)
None of the articles you linked in your article that you linked in your post here were unclear... it's just redundant, especially for on here where everything in your article has already been discussed to death (over the past month and a half or longer).
Re: (Score:3)
Computers were a net positive.
When computers first came out people disagreed on this point. Whole industries were concerned about going under, and they did too.
The Internet... I think the jury is still out on that one.
It really isn't. Say what you want about the state of social media, but the internet has contributed about as much to the rise in GDP and productivity as industrialization itself. Even a locked down fascist dictatorship internet such as that run in Russia or China has been a net positive to society, even for the oppressed.
AI... definitely a net negative
It seems like it until it isn't. It's really the way all t
Re: (Score:3)
Say what you want about the state of social media, but the internet has contributed about as much to the rise in GDP and productivity as industrialization itself
This is the common fallacy many people fall into when deciding if something is good or bad. They assume the only measure of "good" or "bad" is GDP. Whereas in reality, the true measure of good vs. bad should be: Has the Internet improved people's lives? Has it made them happier? Has it made the world less dangerous? If all you care about is
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have to do that. I live in a decent-sized city, but I don't use AI or social media. It's not like any of those things is necessary to live in society.
Re:Boo me too, then. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a rule of thumb, social problems are not solved by technological means. And the way we run society, new tech usually adds to, or creates whole new social problems.
The issue with poverty, inequality, war and famine is not that everything has been attempted, but that not much at all has been attempted. But there have been successes here and there. The Chinese have lifted 1B people out of poverty during the last four decades or so. The inequality situation in the US was pretty good starting from FDR, up until the neoliberals got in power with Reagan (and every president since) and started to sell the country for scrap, culminating in the US of today. The EU basically got started as a project to make war not happen in Europe again. Famine could be solved today, the world has enough food, the only problem is distribution.
As you can see, none of these is a technological problem, but a political one. When there's a will, there's a way, it's just that we rarely have the will.
The Luddites fought against social problems, namely, the fleeting ability to support oneself in their contemporary capitalist economy. You will find that pretty much every riot everywhere ever boils down to peoples ability to feed their families. The machines just found themselves as the poster child of the problem, in the same way that AI is now the poster child of our contemporary capitalist economy, where one's ability to support oneself and their family is more and more in question. Also do not let slip past you the fact that in both the merchant capitalism of the Luddite times, and the financial capitalism of our times, for a huge amount of people there's no economy but the gig economy available.
The Luddites did not go away because technology solved their, or anyone else's problems. They went away because they were brutalized, and machine breaking was made a capital crime. Over time, left to their own problems, people either starved, or found a way. Nothing about this was a success story of a technological victory parade, but a saga of our failure to be human. One that has a nonzero chance to repeat itself in the near future.
Re: (Score:2)
Rules of thumb are dumb. Especially made up ones. You can make a pretty good argument that EVERY social problem is solved by technology. Probably not the technology you're thinking of though. Most of it is plumbing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There are lots of people who have lots of different motivations. "Will" isn't usually a problem. "Ability" is. Or "capacity" is maybe a better word. The pattern repeats over and over and has been studied over and over, in exhaustive detail.
Yes, it gets in the way of all that delightful Victorian "the savages are savages because they want to be," manifest destiny, chosen people bullshit. Good.
Re: (Score:2)
You are missing the big picture.
Living in the stone age, or even the middle ages, was awful by all these metrics. The rise of tech in general has put food in the mouths of more people than ever before, cured and treated more diseases than ever before, created a world with greater equality than ever before.
Were women more or less equal to men during the stone age? Back when tribes traded women for pigs and fish-nets, and women never held positions of leadership, nor did women bring providence to a family.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not arguing tech cannot improve lives, I'm arguing it doesn't happen by itself. Technology is mostly neutral, and does to us what we set out to do with it. But since technology is ran and owned not by the people, but by an elite that has interests that run counter to those of the people, getting any improvements to filter down to the population at large is either a happy accident, or takes a great effort and struggle.
Starting with the stone age, no, you're just plain projecting savage beast stereotypes
Re:Boo me too, then. (Score:4, Informative)
Are you sure you know who a luddite was? You speak as if they were the factory owners or something. A luddite was an out of work wage slave. Calling one as profiting from slavery... it's a bit rich, but a good example of shifting the blame.
The ones who profited were the slave owners in the US, and the capitalists in Britain. Both legs of this arrangement were built on systematic exploitation of the disenfranchised, and to call one exploited as profiting from another exploited, all the while turning a blind eye the actual exploiters... disingenious at best.
Re: (Score:3)
Calling people names already, are we. But you are at least something on topic with communism, it pairs inherently with the Industrial Revolution, as it was invented as a result of witnessing the exploitation of the factory workers.
The quality of life of an average English person in the 19th century was child labor, cold, undernourished and overworked, if lucky enough to have a job. The luddites did not fight to keep their great jobs, they fought to have any job at all, because the alternative was to starve.
Re: Boo me too, then. (Score:3)
AI will not fix poverty and inequality. It will just stick more people in poverty with no mobility out. No one will be able to afford to acquire skills or get exposure to advanced tech. Even so, those jobs will be very few and will likely have wait lists.
If you want support for this tech, then explain how you will deal with the fallout.
"It is now your turn to shape it" (Score:3)
"Upon which, I will re-change it to whatever I want, anyway"
You can boo (Score:2)
But that doesn't change anything. If you want to change something you need to fight or adapt. The advice Schmidt gave is good. It's the people who are graduating who will shape the future. Simply shouting boo doesn't shape anything.
Re: You can boo (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You'll be a billionaire any day now.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok so billionaires AND millionaires are on that train? That changes everything!!
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine having a 6 digit /. account and not being a millionaire after three decades in tech. Are you even trying?
Re: (Score:2)
*Sigh* That's not the point, you said billionaires aren't the only ones excited about AI and then revealed that you're a millionaire. That's great for you, but anyone that needs a paycheck should be nervous about AI and that's 95% of Americans. I'm in a position where I'm not as nervous mostly because I have been in tech for a long time but that doesn't mean I don't have empathy for these kids who are just entering the job market.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't miss any point. No one owes you a job. I had the exact same problem in 2008 that they have now. It turns out there's a churn in the economy and pretty soon they will be in demand as all the boomers retire. We're gonna have a shortage in tech again soon.
At last, a billionaire makes it clear (Score:5, Insightful)
"When someone offers you a seat on the rocket ship, you do not ask which seat. You just get on..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So it's the platforms' fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
... platforms "gave everyone a voice" but also "degraded the public square... They rewarded outrage. They amplified our worst instincts.
I'm totally not surprised that Schmidt is a disingenuous gaslighting fucktard. But I AM surprised that he's so unskilled at it. Or does he imagine that his audience is too stupid to notice what he's trying to do?
Well dear Eric, the platforms wouldn't have "amplified our worst instincts" if the algorithms that your kind created to rule them hadn't been tuned for maximum profit - and therefore maximum outrage and lowest-common-denominator behaviour. And don't you dare to pretend that you didn't realize that's what Google and its competitors were doing, you evil lying liar.
I'm pleased that your gaslighting was called out and booed by young people - both because it signals hope for recovering some semblance of a moral and compassionate civil society, and because it proves that with your high self-opinion you've managed to deceive yourself more than the young minds you sought to pervert.
For all your money and intelligence, you're still an abject failure. Do us all a favour and fuck the fuck off - a compassionate, principled, moral society has no use for you and your kind.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point he had to have expected it, because it's not the first commencement speaker getting booed over AI story this week.
And I'm sure it's no fun getting booed by an entire graduating class, right? So what's his angle?
My verdict: He's doing this as a legacy play because he honestly thinks history will look back on it as an important moment. There's no other motivation for it. Therefore, he's a true believer - not a gaslighting fucktard.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm sure it's no fun getting booed by an entire graduating class, right? So what's his angle?
He is advertising AI because he hopes people will use it to find a way to make it work.
Search engines didn't need to be advertised, because it was obvious how well they worked. Slack didn't need to be advertised because it was obvious how well it worked.
AI needs to be advertised, people need to be threatened with firing if they don't use it. Why?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that's part of it but I also think he genuinely believes the tech is a good thing for the world. You'd have to, even it it's just a defense mechanism against thinking you're a piece of shit all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have to, even it it's just a defense mechanism against thinking you're a piece of shit all the time.
He eats mushrooms for that. It pairs nicely with fentanyl to deaden the pain. Add LSD for boredom.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not likely. You're right it's not the first speaker to get booed, but the speech for this was probably written months ago, practised for weeks and then given. The fact someone else got booed likely never came up because everyone else was doing same.
Graduation is happening around this time, so a bunch of people will likely be talking about AI. Many of them are likely tech bros who basically are chanting the positive aspects of AI because the benefit of AI goes tot hem. Likely they have been insulated f
Re: (Score:2)
He definitely IS a gaslighting fucktard. He's always been one.
Years ago, when he turned Google from a promising tech company into an evil spy company, he used to prance around telling reporters to suck it up, because if they didn't want to have their private data hoovered up and published on the Internet, maybe they shouldn't be doing things in private at all. Then a reporter from CNET looked up Schmidty's address and published it in a story for all to see. Schmidt promptly attacked the reporter and CNET
Translation (Score:5, Interesting)
SCHMIDT: "...AI will become part of how work is done..."
"When someone offers you a seat on the rocket ship, you do not ask which seat. You just get on... The rocket ship is here."
Meaning: We're investing a LOT of money trying to replace you, so shut up, do what you're told, how you're told, and be grateful you still have a job - for now.
Also, I'd still want to know who's on that rocket and especially who I'm sitting next to. If it's Elon or one of the other rich, entitled, um... CEOs - pass. /s
Remembering what Jordan Klepper said on The Daily Show about Trump's recent trip to China with all the tech CEOs:
That’s the kind of bachelor party that makes a stripper want to get her life back in order.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Meaning: We're investing a LOT of money trying to replace you, so shut up, do what you're told, how you're told, and be grateful you still have a job - for now.
Jokes on them, LLM will never scale into a general purpose AI, nor even a profitable one for 99% of use cases. Yet the trillions being poured into data center hardware has a half life of about 3-4 years of utility, meaning hundreds of billions are guaranteed to be wiped out. It may be possible to get another fundamental breakthrough, but realistically this isn’t possible because the current AI models have been around for 15+ years and it took more than a decade for them to actually mature to a bare level of usefulness. We aren’t seeing these so we know trillions will be guaranteed to be flushed down the crapper, while vastly increasing our utility bills, cutting jobs not out of productivity gains but to afford the hardware, and while AI won’t ever go away, these fools and their money will soon be parted. That’s why he’s sweating.
Re: (Score:2)
I will never tire of watching so called experts pretending to not be capable of back of the envelope math that proves them wrong. Or maybe you've just been stuck in a cave for the past 5 years. You never know with the /. crowd.
Conflicted (Score:2)
My Semi-Professional 'capsure' (Score:2)
=== BEGIN, IGNORE THIS LINE
He has a Ph.D. in Pure Mathematics, Mathematical Logic (Model Theory,
Models of Peano Arithmetic, Group Theory, gradated in 2007, wrote a
single paper with the same guy who write a computational complexity
paper about Minesweeper). He
was born in Exeter. What is his name?
=== END, IGNORE THIS LINE
Take what is in between. Copy it. Paste it into Gemini. It should tell you who I was professionally. Then do the same to Copilot and grab some popcorn.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried this for fun. Only some free models. The results:
Copilot: John David Allsup
Gemini: MaxTokenHalt? Something went wrong. Not sure what.
Duckduckgo GPT 5 Fast: Richard Kaye
Duckduckgo Claude Haiku 4.5 Reasoning: MaxTokenHalt
Qwen 3.6 27B Reasoning (locally run without internet access): David J.
Public square is a complete lie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what do you think
Re: (Score:2)
And what do you think /. is?
Private property, owned by a corporation that sells an advertising service.
Your confusion is extremely odd.
Re: (Score:2)
Bunch of hypocritical nitwits (Score:3, Interesting)
What percentage of those booing students had used AI to help them complete their coursework in the past year?
I would wager good money - 100%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
College in 2026 is all about the feelings.
Facts are so 20th century.
Good Job Eric! (Score:3)
Revenue Raising using AI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The future's not set (Score:3)
What a great way to start a speech. (Score:2)
He essentially said that computers made everything worse for community and made us all treat each other worse, then said AI is going to accelerate that. How did he not expect to get booed?
Let Them Eat AI (Score:3)
Eric Schmidt's ChatGPT prompt begins: "You are Marie Antoinette, writing a commencement speech for the Univ. of Arizona graduating class of 2026..."
We're going to take away the jobs you studied for (Score:2)
... and leave you deep in dept with useless degrees. Isn't that wonderful?
"inheriting a mess that you did not create" (Score:2)
That's right, you ass hat tech bros created this mess. Tech companies need to be put on a leash now before it's too late.
Your Turn to Shape the Future! (Score:2)
Gen Z's motivation? (Score:2)
While fear of the future is something he recognizes as a factor, he misses that there's also anger about how hings have been handled in the past - and are are being handled in the same way today.
Re:Fucking Losers (Score:5, Insightful)
You can certainly have your opinion. But calling people that don't agree with you 'fucking trash' shows a lot more about you than it does them.
Re: (Score:2)
You can certainly have your opinion. But calling people that don't agree with you 'fucking trash' shows a lot more about you than it does them.
Perhaps to a point, but the problem with requiring civilized discourse about someone who doesn't see you as another person. To them you are simply a line item on a spreadsheet, and that is the disparity. You demand that people keep proper decorum for him, but forget that (and I have been around waayyy too many wealthy people to deny it) to many like him you're trash. Yes, even you, the person calling for decorum. Point in fact you're useful but pathetic trash.
I had a different opinion for a very long ti
Re: (Score:2)
Strong words there, but I agree. This tech is something that people are going to have to embrace in order to succeed. I'm way behind the curve on AI expertise I'm sure, not orchestrating a team of agents etc, but I use it every day. I've learned how to work with AI assistance effectively, and that's becoming an essential skill. It can turbocharge everything you do.
People in college should be getting a heaping helping of AI-enabled project building. Practical use cases. Come out of school with a set of smart
Re:Fucking Losers (Score:5, Insightful)
This tech is something that people are going to have to embrace in order to succeed
Nah. I don't use AI on principle. And I'm doing just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
>> I'm doing just fine
Are you a recent college graduate who found a job?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I am retired.
My daughter, however, is a recent university graduate and she has a teaching job and doesn't use AI.
Re: (Score:2)
So you really aren't a part of the cohort under discussion, right?
The teaching profession may presently be less vulnerable to AI infiltration than others in terms of required qualifications and how you operate. Most other white collar jobs are going to want to see you produce work outputs with AI assistance and be good at it.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm doing just fine.
That's like saying you don't need to buy a car in 1891 because you're doing just fine without them. How many people do you still see commuting on horses today. At this point the only thing you can conclusively say is that you're not an early adopter. Time will tell if you're "doing just fine" when AIs as tools get their footing and people who don't know how or refuse to use it are seen as increasingly inefficient.
I'm happy you're doing fine now, and I genuinely hope AI remains optional for you going forward
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that the only alternative to a car that came to mind was horses. Hundreds of millions of people in well-designed cities get by without cars because of a magical thing called "public transit".
To be fair, I am retired, so I don't need to use AI or worry about a tech role. I have friends who are still working in the tech industry who are forced to use AI and who hate it. If I were younger and were forced to use AI, I would quit the tech industry and do something else.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm GenX. Don't have $5M by any means. And while I'm not building the future, I built the future by starting a software development company and running it for 19 years.
Re:Fucking Losers (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, they are losers, in the sense that the oligarchs, of which this guy is one, have announced repeatedly that most of them are not going to have jobs because of this new technology that he finds exciting because it allows people like him to finally be capitalists without all those pesky workers and their pesky mouths. That was a significant loss for these college kids. Hence, losers. Shut up, losers. Quit losing all the time, losers! End of the world, environmental devastation, billionaire AI bros competing to build the biggest apocalypse bunker, bitch, bitch, bitch.
Because this guy says there's going to be a productivity tsunami! You, too, in fact everyone, can be a software oligarch! All you have to do is strap yourself to a plagiarism machine long enough to train it to replace you. Just relax into it and watch your skills degrade in real time. Your craft, your mastery, your pride and worth and dignity as a human being? Just shut the fuck up and ask Copilot. Watch it poo out some code you no longer understand how to review, you dummy. Slap a Midjourney-generated logo on it and throw it on the pile and sell it to... uh... well, nobody actually has any money. But surely that problem will solve itself somehow. If you just stop being such losers!
Surely you've noticed how great software has been getting lately! Certainly you haven't noticed a bunch of dev teams bragging about not having written a line of code in four months, while their website simultaneously drops from five nines to nine fives of availability.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I thank my lucky stars every day that I get to live in a time when machine learning was discovered.
Unless you were born before 1959, you didn't live at the time when machine learning was discovered.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. Instead of "Lenny's Podcast" or whatever, try something at least halfway respectable. Maybe the "history" section of the Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Note that 1959 is when "machine learning" was coined. The actual practice goes back quite a bit further than that. The least squares fitting algorithm is from 1805.
Re: (Score:2)
People have very legitimate reasons to reject how AI is currently being pushed into society. It doesn't just assist, it replaces. It makes people less skilled and more dependent on something that has enormous costs for questionable benefit.
Sign up or else you will be 10x as powerful as your peers. It's selling the illusion of expertise to those that don't want to expend the effort and preys on your fears of being left behind economically and socially. There is nothing utopian about it right now and there is
Re: (Score:2)
In my personal life I've used AI to build some insane awesome stuff in the past few months. A new task manger for Linux in C.
What on earth are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, Poettering.
Re: (Score:2)
> You didn't build shit
I had 20 YOE before LLMs were even a thing.
> Prove me wrong. Go on.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/81/2... [pinimg.com]