I agree with the author that there is a sense of hypocritical outrage in Pike’s post.
My viewpoint is similar. Google has done many negative things, and at this point it can easily be argued they have caused net harm. By choosing to remain employed there, Pike tacitly admits he believes that they land on the net positive side.
There is at least as much nuance to AI as a technology, but his level of outrage indicates he is not evaluating it through the lens of trade-offs. His reaction then begs the question: why would he be nuanced in the case of his employer but not in the case of AI? And the answer seems obvious: he profits from Google directly, not AI.
If you reach that conclusion, his words ring pretty hollow.
This gatekeeping is bizarre and weird. It's not OK to complain about the impacts of AI because you worked in the tech industry?
Especially since it starts by complaining about Rob Pike's rant and Rob starts by complaining about the copyright problems as well just as this article claims to dislike.
Poorly thought out and poorly written. By the way, there's no E in "angry".
I would draw a distinction between "working in the tech industry" and "being instrumental to the rise of a terribly consequential corporation over the course of decades".
Copyright is a strange thing to bring up, given I mentioned it not and I couldn't possibly care less about it.
Does the author say “it’s not ok” for tech-knowledgeable to complain about AI? Or do they point out a bit of hypocrisy making it difficult to take them seriously?
The entire post is one big ad hominem. The entire premise is "these people's arguments don't matter because of who they are", which is a fallacy.
I don't care if you think that a broken clock is right twice a day, that competent, intelligent people aren't wrong all the time, or that people are sometimes able to look past their biases and call out the truth, but dismissing arguments for or against AI just because of who someone gets a paycheck from is wrong.
This a bit of a hollow article and kind of misses the point of Rob Pike's rant. This is a guy who care deeply about computing. He spent the first 20 years of his career working at Bell labs, building things like utf-8 (an amazing idea that everying easier for anyone who doesn't speak english!) and plan 9. Pike does not like resource wasting (part of the reason they built Go was to replace Python at Google) so yes, his point makes sense in that context
As of 1816 UTC, every top-level comment here talks about Rob Pike. But read the footnotes: It's not about Rob Pike. I'm not accusing anyone, but the shallowness is consistent with and reminiscent of bots. And being so doggedly against Rob Pike in particular, reminds me of someone who has been betrayed. Did he betray you? Are you Google? Do you pay Pike and believe money can and should buy loyalty? Is the wrath of a thousand particularly sophisticated bots reserved for such traitors?
I agree with the author that there is a sense of hypocritical outrage in Pike’s post.
My viewpoint is similar. Google has done many negative things, and at this point it can easily be argued they have caused net harm. By choosing to remain employed there, Pike tacitly admits he believes that they land on the net positive side.
There is at least as much nuance to AI as a technology, but his level of outrage indicates he is not evaluating it through the lens of trade-offs. His reaction then begs the question: why would he be nuanced in the case of his employer but not in the case of AI? And the answer seems obvious: he profits from Google directly, not AI.
If you reach that conclusion, his words ring pretty hollow.
There are two reasonable-sounding takedowns of any critique of an industry:
- You haven't worked in that industry so don't know what you're talking about, so be quiet.
- You worked in the industry that you are now critiquing and benefited from it, so be quiet.
This gatekeeping is bizarre and weird. It's not OK to complain about the impacts of AI because you worked in the tech industry?
Especially since it starts by complaining about Rob Pike's rant and Rob starts by complaining about the copyright problems as well just as this article claims to dislike.
Poorly thought out and poorly written. By the way, there's no E in "angry".
I would draw a distinction between "working in the tech industry" and "being instrumental to the rise of a terribly consequential corporation over the course of decades".
Copyright is a strange thing to bring up, given I mentioned it not and I couldn't possibly care less about it.
Does the author say “it’s not ok” for tech-knowledgeable to complain about AI? Or do they point out a bit of hypocrisy making it difficult to take them seriously?
"Shut Up" is saying it's not OK.
Can someone tell me why this was flagged? To me, it feels like an important discussion to have
The entire post is one big ad hominem. The entire premise is "these people's arguments don't matter because of who they are", which is a fallacy.
I don't care if you think that a broken clock is right twice a day, that competent, intelligent people aren't wrong all the time, or that people are sometimes able to look past their biases and call out the truth, but dismissing arguments for or against AI just because of who someone gets a paycheck from is wrong.
Not the most gracious post, I suppose.
This a bit of a hollow article and kind of misses the point of Rob Pike's rant. This is a guy who care deeply about computing. He spent the first 20 years of his career working at Bell labs, building things like utf-8 (an amazing idea that everying easier for anyone who doesn't speak english!) and plan 9. Pike does not like resource wasting (part of the reason they built Go was to replace Python at Google) so yes, his point makes sense in that context
As of 1816 UTC, every top-level comment here talks about Rob Pike. But read the footnotes: It's not about Rob Pike. I'm not accusing anyone, but the shallowness is consistent with and reminiscent of bots. And being so doggedly against Rob Pike in particular, reminds me of someone who has been betrayed. Did he betray you? Are you Google? Do you pay Pike and believe money can and should buy loyalty? Is the wrath of a thousand particularly sophisticated bots reserved for such traitors?
This is what I felt when I read Rob Pike’s post, for the most part, but expressed a hundred times better than I could have possibly imagined.