Stop repeating corpo criti-hype
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
48 points (91.4% liked)
Technology
86302 readers
3785 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It's the New York Times. I'm not claiming they're without bias, but come on man
It’s not the paper here so much as the signers that are the problem (though the NYT is more than happy to platform the worst people)
You have an axe to grind, more like a religious tenet than an honest fact-based opinion.
Tell me, of the 16 Nobel laureates in Economics the list, who got their prizes over the last 20 years, on issues from the effects of institutions to markets, policy, dynamics, development economics, and behavioral dynamics ... which exactly are the "worst people", and why, specifically?
EDIT: make your job easier, here are their names. The scoundrels!
Daron Acemoglu
Simon Johnson
James A. Robinson
Joseph E. Stiglitz
A. Michael Spence
Eric S. Maskin
Roger B. Myerson
Paul R. Milgrom
Robert B. Wilson
Robert J. Shiller
Christopher A. Pissarides
Peter A. Diamond
Dale T. Mortensen
Abhijit Banerjee
Esther Duflo
Michael Kremer
Just to be clear: you think it’s the AI skeptics whose views are faith-like, and you give me an appeal to authority to back that up?
Your OG contribution:
Stop repeating corpo criti-hype
I pointed out that I am posting a short simple statement backed up by hundreds of impressive people, including over a dozen Nobel Laureates.
Your response:
the signers that are the problem (though the NYT is more than happy to platform the worst people)
So I listed their names and asked for how, specifically, these are the "worst people".
How do you come to that conclusion? Is it by virtue of the fact that they have Nobel prizes? Or because they signed the statement? If the latter, which, at least, of the 3 points do you disagree with, and why?
Are you this reflexively contrarian with everyone, or just me personally? Just curious
There is no Nobel prize in economics; the award you’re referring to was created long after Nobel’s death and has been “awarded” to many reactionaries including Milton Friedman. If someone criticized the idea that the social responsibility of corporations is to maximize profit and someone else responded by pointing to Friedman’s fake award, it would have about as much merit.
I’m skeptical when AI leaders and big tech are behind it. They want to be part of the discussion to make sure their AI business remains protected and becomes cemented as one of the few solutions allowed to operate.
Have you actually read their statement? It's rather short. https://www.wemustactnow.ai/
AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years.
This could drive an unprecedented transformation of our economy, larger than the Industrial Revolution, but unfolding over a vastly shorter time frame. It could bring risks, including large-scale job displacement, as well as opportunities such as major gains in living standards.
Economists, policymakers and technology leaders must act now to understand the economics of transformative AI and to build the incentives, guardrails, and institutions needed to steer AI in a direction that complements humans and benefits society.
None of that questions if we should be building AI in the first place.
Who stands to benefit when AI is developed and has massive consequences on society? I think it is mainly capitalists and global elite benefiting and society losing out.
Also no mention of the environmental destruction that is needed to build and run AI.
AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years.
This is corporate propaganda. It very likely won't. It hasn't improved meaningfully in the last several years. All the "breakthroughs" have been around agentic harnesses and not the models themselves.
Either way, we've had models that are good enough to support the actual real world use cases for LLMs since some time last year.
Having people think progress is about to explode is benefiting share holders.
Well point 1is classic salesman ship. "Investors, get in on the ground floor, this thing is going to the moon".
Also in labour relations "Unions, workers accept this worse deal for you or swear on my grandma's grave we replace you with soon to be super powerful AI".
There is no way of knowing will or will not LLMs radically improve and lead to radical change. Since we have no way of knowing does someone say resolve the hallucinating and being confidently wrong issues. Not atleast with current probability models, since that random number throw (that is necessary for the whole thing to work) has that chance to land bad. There is no way without fundamentally different base model to give hard orders like "never do that". There is always the chance 1% and 0,1% throws happen.
The statement, titled “We Must Act Now,” was signed by nearly 200 people, including 15 Nobel laureates and the chief economists of two of the leading A.I. labs, Open AI and Anthropic. Other notable signatories include Jack Clark, a co-founder of Anthropic; Eric Schmidt, the former chief executive of Google; and Vinod Khosla, a prominent venture capitalist.
far far more worried about the economic impact of over investment in utter bullshit.
yes i use and ship ai tools every fucking day.