2026-10-19 07:37 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@troed@fedia.io 2026-10-19 07:49
Can you cite the "lashing out" and "insulting"? It seems to be missing from the screenshot.
-
@maegul@lemmy.ml 2026-10-19 07:57
I don’t know the relationship between the two. It was obviously a harsh response. But it was defending himself as a CEO that apparently is not just a heartless and skillless CEO. If that’s untrue, that’s mostly a separate issue. But their main point, as I understand, is that the generalising critique of CEOs was missing the point that CEOs who apparently know what they’re talking about can also be pro-AI. Now I’m anti-AI, but that seems like a meaningful point to make at the moment (although it was done aggressively, as I said). Honestly, one of the things worrying me at this moment with AI is just how much pro and anti-AI can’t speak the same language any more. And I think this is an example. AI can be good or bad irrespective of whether CEOs psychopaths. In fact, I worry more so that the anti-AI side is struggling to express our side of things clearly and convincingly. For pro-AI peeps it’s easy. If it does a thing quickly and easily, and that’s your goal, then that’s a win. Talking about quality and the fate of humanity is a different kind of conversation. With this Twitter exchange, yes CEOs can be psychopaths. But I’m not sure that’s the important point. A world run by Big Corpo is much more psychopathic while there will always be some CEOs in that system who aren’t all bad. Maybe a pedantic point. But in this case, I’m not sure Kenney win the argument, at least not for many of the readers we’d need to convince.