• Saganastic@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can be passionate about technological advancement and also be concerned about rent prices, funding for schools, and climate change. Let people solve the problems they’re able to solve.

    • Frittiert@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So why don’t we look after people if we have the means?

      Who has the means? Why don’t they share and use their wealth to really help people and create progress?

      And why do we let them act this way?

    • Waldhuette@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes we could if the rich paid their fare share in taxes and didn’t hog all the wealth. All they do is drizzle some tiny amount to the public here and there to appear generous and get tax benefits.

      The vast majority of their money just gets wasted for their egomaniacal projects in an attempt to be remembered forever.

      None of the shit they are developing is gonna safe us from extreme climate change. In fact those same people are a heavy driving force behind climate change.

      • Deceptichum@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right, capitalists suck, we all know this.

        Comic could have had the rich cunts behind oil companies withholding climate data, car manufacturers lying about the safety of their products, housing companies kicking out a poor family, etc.

        Instead they chose to go after the technology instead of the people or their evil choices.

        Hence it being Luddite shit.

    • mohKohn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      the specific people are all (with the exception of Sam Altmann) grifters. they are

      1. guy whose sub imploded at the titanic
        2 Sam Altman, head of OpenAI (which went from charity to a wing of Microsoft).
      2. Sam Bankman Freid’s brother, who was talking about buying an island to carry “effective altruists” through an extinction-level event.

      It pisses me off that these are the first EA adjacent people that are broadly well-known, rather than Givewell and 80,000 hours, who are actually doing good work.

        • mohKohn@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          EA is primarily advice for people with moderate amounts of disposable income (i.e. middle class), or people trying to figure out their career trajectory. Earn to give is very much a minority position, and that’s pretty much the only one that at all involves aiming to be rich.

          Longtermism is mostly a weird set of academics. the recent folks using it as a pretext to buy houses in the Caribbean are almost purely a group of cryptobros using it as a way to ethics-wash their pump and dump.

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you think destroying the planet is progress? These are jackasses doing more harm than good and they’re labeling their stupid visions as progress. Central planning is filled with issues, right? Well a few rich people shaping the world to their liking is pretty damn centralized.

      • Deceptichum@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You actually think some programmers and scientists creating a language model is destroying the world?

        I’d say that belongs to the large investment firms, and the billionaires who decide to do things like bury climate data and push propaganda that climate change isn’t a thing for the last 100 years.

        But hey, you do you champ!