If this new way of organizing is meant to address the problems of ivory-tower academia, why does it just seem to be reproducing it at (hyper)scale? All in the name of euphemized utilitarianism?

Is there any room here for healthy debate? For academic rigor? For looking to the past? Or is it all just vibes? Just imagining a world where they didn't happen to get all their money from like one guy, but still persevered in their thought. What could that look like? Is it even anything at all?

Now everything is just like above, dorkspeak. Where it reminds me so much more of kids arguing in the playground about "who would win in a fight Darth Vader or Batman"; or console-vs-PC debates. Everything is about the genuine complexity of navigating certain products, of being first and foremost a consumer of something and putting all your energy into comparing various things you are free to choose from.

Its not even like its less techincal, or more mean now, or anything like that. It's just very different and I know its been a while but it feels like it happened overnight.

"Flock is bad" metonymizes the situation, but doesn't let anyone off the hook.

> He thereby extracts for his congregation all practical uses from precepts to which he would not himself subscribe with complete conviction, but whose presentation he can nonetheless undertake, since it is not entirely impossible that truth lies hidden in them, and, in any case, nothing contrary to the very nature of religion is to be found in them. If he believed he could find anything of the latter sort in them, he could not in good conscience serve in his position; he would have to resign. Thus an appointed teacher’s use of his reason for the sake of his congregation is merely private, because, however large the congregation is, this useis always only domestic...

https://www.nypl.org/sites/default/files/kant_whatisenlighte...

It just seems like the AI guys could easily win this debate if they could just articulate the why of it beyond just the near-parodic "everything will be AI in the future!". Like why not be a positive articulator and defender of what the extreme influx of datacenters will bring to the people? Don't you think that would be at least a stronger argument to make here? Why police the ideology or scare people with your position when you could, I don't know, win their hearts and minds?

Isn't that why you (presumably) like AI? Because it brings good things to people?

Like its fine if you hold a blanket dismissal of the very premise of the research here, but then its kinda weird to spend such effort being grumpy about it in this particular context?

Its like finding a paper that does certain comparative work between different kinds of apple pie and choosing to come on here and be like "I don't think we should ever have any dessert either way!"

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49760555

Points: 16

# Comments: 2

And fwiw, I just collapse comments if its hard to follow a particular thread! That's why they have that feature.

I disagree with this part. But we can certainly sink lower!

There is a lot of risk involved with giving some children weapons and sending them off to recess. But we also speak of the "risk" of climate change and cigarettes. Or the "risk" of illiteracy among a population. All I am kinda curious to know (from anyone) really is what kind of risk is the one we are supposed to be taking seriously, as the non-hysterical adults-in-the-room? As the scientists contra these poets? Is it more the former, or the latter?

Just even: what is the risk specifically? What is it that author ignores here?