"AI shouldn't be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons". The statement from OpenAI virtually guarantees that the intention is to use it for mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. If this wasn't the intention them the qualifier "domestic" wouldn't be used, and they would be talking about "human in the loop" control of autonomous weapons, not "human responsibility" which just means there's someone willing to stand up and say, "yep I take responsibility for the autonomous weapon systems actions", which lets be honest is the thinnest of thin safety guarantees.
I think the major problem a lot of people have with Elon's behaviour is not that he is behaving in an "entrepreneurial" way, but that he appears to be in the middle of a hypomanic episode and has nobody around him who has the ability or balls to tell him he's acting irrationally. And I say this as someone who is bipolar and has them on a regular basis. Most people (who manage their mental health conditions responsibly), have a group of people they trust to rein them in when they start going batshit. This usually involves things like taking away their bank cards so they don't spend all their money, dissuading them from making any major, life altering decisions, noting when you're lying to yourself and others, and attempting to point out that possibly behaving like a self aggrandising megalomaniac is not particularly healthy.
It's quite clear that Musk doesn't have anyone around who is willing or able to do that. Most of us when we go hypo will end up blasting through our savings, screwing around (literally) and generally pissing off all around us by behaving in a self centred and irrational way, but ultimately the damage we do is limited mostly to ourselves. Elon on the other hand has spent billions on a company, apparently on a whim, probably during another episode, that he later regretted and tried to get out of, again presumably when he came down, and now appears to be taking a series of increasingly irrational and destructive decisions that are affecting the lives of many. To be honest, I think it's kind of sad to watch.
This behavior isn’t atypical for him, nor is it for the “elite” celebrity entrepreneurs featured in endless news cycles. Reminds me of Dov Charney, an employer I worked for, who was more than willing to chase his coked-up half-baked ideas at expense of his company and the livelihoods of thousands of workers. I’m afraid Elon is not a novel case nor an interesting one.
> It's quite clear that Musk doesn't have anyone around who is willing or able to do that
How can you say that with such certainty? Maybe he’s not listening to them. Same for Kanye. A lot of people spoke with him about his condition. Did that make any difference?
Real example about Musk: a lot of people told him to not start SpaceX. Did he stop? I’m glad though he did not.
Pushing for innovation is one thing. Messing erratically with people's minds careers at a large scale is another one. The former does not excuse or justify the latter. Firing people can be necessary but what he did this week was just crazy in a bad way.
> Messing erratically with people's minds careers at a large scale is another one. The former does not excuse or justify the latter. Firing people can be necessary but what he did this week was just crazy in a bad way.
Without speculating about his mental state, which doesn't only apply to him but to other polarizing public figures, it definitely seems like his actions are larger-than-life and controversial. I'd argue that a lot of it is probably carefully cultivated, but the monomaniacal, megalomaniacal style is just off-putting for the masses exhausted by celebrity spotlight chasing (even if it might serve to elide all sorts of decisions the public might not be looking at):
There could be more to the story but I believe Elon Musk has said that he has autism. I’ve heard it said that autism is often misdiagnosed as bipolar because they are similar in some ways. That being said I would say there’s a difference between a hypomanic/depression swing/episode and an intense interest/ burnout swing/episode.
More on the topic, the things you listed as responsible management are all removing agency from the person and treating them like children because otherwise you can’t be trusted. Imo being responsible is learning to manage your own issues as an adult.
I think the frustrating thing for me is that the extreme reaction to his actions are really about his politics. I have no doubt that he would be being praised for saving Twitter instead of ridiculed for ‘destroying’ it if he had been toeing the party line.
Toeing the party line how? Any CEO who takes control of a company and behaves erratically towards its workforce, at he is doing now, would get criticized. The only difference is that alternate version of Musk might get called a hypocrite or a fraud, so just a different set of insults.
SBF was a huge Democratic Party donor and he's not escaping severe criticism because of it, even if the NYT and some other outlets might've gone easy on him. The court of public opinion is still severely against him.
I really fail to see the logic here, if Donald trump remained a Democrat in 2016 he would 100% not get nominated. Just look at what happened with Bloomberg.
Show some examples of this, AFAIK if you go against the voters you're out.
Republicans questions election results without proof and they are "undermining democracy". Hilary Clinton calls Trump an "illegitimate president" in 2019 and it's crickets.
Of course they'll wave their hands saying "it's different", but it's not. Either denying election results without evidence is wrong or it's not.
The first example is just not comparable, republicans are to this day proclaiming election stolen without ANY evidence of fraud.
While the 2016 event has always been about Russian election interference NOT election conspiracy by democrats.
The article you provided is Hillary saying sour grapes (not sure why poor ol Jimmy is asked about it), not rambling about crazy conspiracies to the point of embracing it.
Second example is more make sense, because Republicans strategy since Gingrich (of never compromise always obstruct), so if democrats are in favor of A then republican strategy is to literally advocate for B even though they are also for A (look at gun control passed in red states or voter encouragement laws).
Hilary said, without any proof, "I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did."
But you make excuses about "sour grapes". It's not, she making claims of "voter suppression", "hacking" that resulted in a unfair election. That's a very serious accusation and undermines the election process. Just as serious as Republicans claiming election fraud.
Either making claims about illegitimate elections is wrong or not.
The difference is she's not wrong about those things (3/4 of them):
there was interference in the election (hacking)
Republicans have pushed for voter suppression
"fake" stories did plague her election (emails, benghazi)
voter purge I'm not sure what that is suppose to be about in this context.
And this is coming from a person that "hates" Hillary.
I don't make any excuse for her statements, I'm saying she not Donald trump who controls and influences their party.
How is her conduct during the Benghazi crisis and her leaked emails “interference”? Those seem like legitimate things for voters to take into consideration?
Again, Republicans say there were issues with the election and it’s “threatening democracy”, Hilary does it and everyone thinks it fine.
reply