Everyone says this before they learn what they didn’t value. Peace, for example.
> Its easy for you to say, all perched up as a VC
It’s easy to say for anyone who has read the history of political violence. When that comes on the table, universally [1], the people with power also have the power to raise armies. The people who stand to benefit from violent insurrection, today, are the oligarchs.
This happens every time because it’s obvious. If CEOs getting killed is normal, then activists against those companies getting killed is normal too. A lot more people will kill for a million dollars than because they hate some guy.
[1] Apart from early 20th century Communist revolutions, where elites actually suffered.
Clearly you're not a fella who's faced much hardship in life.
"people who stand to benefit from violent insurrection, today, are the oligarchs."
They already do lmao. Are you delusional?
I doubt they’re on this forum.
> Clearly you're not a fella who's faced much hardship in life
Ha. Putting my own past aside, I’ve found it’s folks who grew up never knowing violence who are the quickest to embrace it.
> They already do
There is always more.
Reading and understanding do not always go along, though.
The more likely result is either that every member of the board and c-suite ends up on death row, or in a grave. There are far more people willing to avenge loved ones than there are people willing to kill for money.
Here in Sweden, political violence by the farmer class ensured that by the end of the pre-democracy era, self-owning farmers held 50% of the land, whereas in Denmark, it was only 10%.
This was due to violence, serious, organized war-like violence; and yes, of course the government brought in mercenaries, noble forces, etc. but fighting the farmer class had a substantial cost, and that they were willing to impose that cost gave them better conditions.
Killing guys at the bottom is very different from killing somebody at the top. If people are killing activists, journalists etc. that is always oppression. If people are killing people at the top it can be either way, depending on whether they are put there by some large grass-roots phenomenon or are trying to run society from the top of a pyramid, but in your argument you are placing these things as equal, you say:
>If CEOs getting killed is normal, then activists against those companies getting killed is normal too
and this is false. It is so false I don't quite understand how anyone can write it.
This works. Disciplined, organized violence. Lone wolves shooting at homes and gunning down healthcare middle managers does not.
> this is false
It’s deeply precedented.
>It’s deeply precedented.
Ah, we are confused about what we mean. You mean that workers, activists etc. will be killed. I mean that their killing is oppression, whereas the killing of non-grassroots supported people at the top of power pyramids, isn't.
But that isn't the point: you are in fact right, I am right too, but the thing I want to say is: the oppression of workers, activists, journalists etc. that might be triggered by the destabilizing violence is necessary in order to get the reaction.
When a person who understands destabilization does it, he of course wants to trigger this oppression, and for that oppression to trigger the organized war-like stuff.
The way I see it, the pragmatic choice is to prefer to see Americans attack themselves because a divided America is less of a threat to my country.
Sometimes less civilized countries fall into civil war, sometimes they invade neighbours. If you're the neighbour which would you prefer?
Is that a reasonable perspective to you?
I think the general population is much more likely to feel joy about it than want a police crackdown.
If we're talking about attacks against average software engineers and obscure founders, fewer people would be happy about it, but a great number still would be. There is a lot of envy toward software engineers and founders.
Someone blindly shooting at Altman’s house is going to kill a neighbour or the housekeeper. Not Sam Altman. Probably not even his family.
The internet may be happy. But the locals will get scared. This happens every time these lone-wolf escalations occur.
But even if the DA prosecutes, the jury can nullify the charges, which is a risk. What happens when a jury finds the accused not guilty?
The masses will only tolerate so much before the elite start dying. See all of human history.
Most of the population will be for the violent attacks. Techbros went way too far in gleefully describing how they would destroy most people's careers while enriching themselves. Never bothered to think whether they should just because they could. Now the rooster is coming home to roost.
The best way for the attacks on AI executives to stop is to pass meaningful legislation that limits the use and scope of AI.
I doubt it. It would further polarize your population and what you really want is to unite them. You could make a video documentation that contrasts all the known, massive corruption cases in your administration (and SV personae) with the equally massive decay in your infrastructure from roads to bridges to the closure of maternity wings in hospitals because they are no longer profitable. Make as little dialogue/narration as possible and quote dollar numbers as often as possible. Spread posts contrasting corruption/decay to every outlet/social media.
Most people don't understand technology and/or its second order effects. They do understand when they are being stolen from.
Doesn't complaining about protestors at Columbia just make it clear that these complaints aren't actually about violence but are instead about rabble-rousers?
I was in New York during that time. They turned an entire swath of the city into a police zone. The dominant narrative was sympathy for the cause increasingly giving way to frustration to the destruction.
Potato potato. It’s a predictable, even necessary, response to occupying a building. Same as increasing police present if vigilante violence ramps up somewhere.
People who don’t understand that will keep trashing the causes they purport to represent.
It seems so clear that this is not about violence but instead about people who don't know their place.
1. Violent attacks against AI CEOs, researchers, and engineers is going to begin. This is due to widespread negative press that AI receives and as well as a pervasive feeling of economic uncertainty and doom in the population. Some of this being caused by the current administration's leadership, but much of it attributed to AI taking jobs and destroying opportunity.
2. Violent acts taken against non-tech CEOs will increase hand-in-hand.
3. If AI continues to demonstrate impressive new capabilities for automation, this rate will increase substantially.
4. The government may come down hard on these individuals, which will further inflame the situation.
5. Data centers will come under attack / sabotage.
6. This will all wind up further inflamed by prediction markets.
I have a colleague at Anthropic that refuses to put it on his LinkedIn. We all now know why.