And as a clickbait headline, "not everyone" makes sense.

But, realistically, the NYT obviously isn't talking about, say, the North Sentinelese islanders. Similarly, it's probably not really talking about people who don't do the kind of white collar work where AI is, so far, most prevalent.

In fact, the group the NYT is most likely referring to as "everyone" is really "readers of the NYT". It might be hard to come up with numbers for that, but I suspect they'd be a lot higher.

Anecdotally, at the company I'm at (late-stage venture-backed), everyone from software developers to people on the marketing, sales, and finance side are using AI. And we're not unique. This will make the statement ring true to many people, even if it's not globally true in an absolute sense.

This all makes more sense once you've truly internalized the Yogi Berra quote about a certain popular restaurant: "No one goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

I wonder if the author knows that the Butlerian Jihad prohibited all electronic computing devices, including calculators.

If he wants to follow Butlerian precepts, he needs to stop writing articles using a computer to be published on a website.

Amusing that they managed to create a business strategy that depends on the sunk cost fallacy being wrong.

One of the common private equity playbooks recognizes this - they’ll often jettison anything resembling an R&D department from a new acquisition, and run the company as a cash cow. If its market dies, so be it. Leave the innovation to the startups who are focused on it.

The problem with Facebook is that the founders have ambitions beyond their capabilities (apparently).

As Upton Sinclair put it, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

That quote is just the tip of the iceberg of Sinclair's work, though. He wrote about how when a person's livelihood, reputation, or financial well-being relies on a specific status quo, they often find it impossible to see the logic or ethics in changing it. It can be very difficult for them to confront such issues objectively.

He also wrote about the question of cynics vs. true believers in this situation. For the true believers, he pointed out that the only way for them to resolve their cognitive dissonance (while maintaining their lifestyle) is to block out the truth entirely. They stop trying to understand because actually understanding would be too painful.

On the other hand I enjoy reading about all the things people are recreating with LLMs, since it gives an idea of what's not just possible, but actually practical, in case I ever need something similar.

(This may be a short-lived preference though, if it gets to the point where just about anything within reason is practical.)

If I decide you're having a negative impact on my net worth, can I come to your home and shoot you in the head?

It seems we need a remedial class in morality here, where we work up to you understanding the golden rule. But perhaps you're not capable of understanding that. Is euthanizing you then the only option?

> I think they are lying, and I think they are hurting people. I think they're genuinely hurting people.

That hurting of people is part of the war that I mentioned. The rest of the video focuses quite heavily on this general issue. It gives specific examples, but they're representative.

"Sanders Releases Report on Big Tech Oligarchs’ War Against Workers, Warns AI Could Eliminate Nearly 100 Million U.S. Jobs": https://www.help.senate.gov/dem/newsroom/press/news-sanders-...

"How the American Oligarchy Went Hyperscale": https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/04/american-oligar...

"AI Is a Threat to Everything the American People Hold Dear": https://www.sanders.senate.gov/op-eds/ai-is-a-threat-to-ever...

To be clear: I'm an extremely experienced software developer. I use AI daily. I'm currently working on training a DNN that's used in production by enterprise companies around the globe.

But there's absolutely no doubt that AI is being deployed as a weapon by the capitalist class against everyone else, and that's only going to amplify and get much, much worse. The issue is not necessarily the technology itself. The issue is how society permits it to be used.

Everyone else needs to start treating them that way, or you're going to regret it once you realize what's actually happening.

We absolutely know that we can't trust the American model not to do that - it's "by the oligarchs, for the oligarchs" - so it's not clear what the claim really is.

Better overall design?

You’re buying into the hype they’re trying to create here.