I cringe every time I hear Bari and guests like Marc Andreessen espousing the goal of "curing disease." That "we've got a pill for that" mentality already fatally infects the medical profession and bureaucracy. We need to focus on PREVENTING disease.
Despite his prescience on so many issues, this feels like someone who's great at one thing and therefore thinks he's great at all things. And Bari, FWIW, please stop letting your guests do 95% of the talking. You tossed him softballs and let him pontificate. It's happening a lot lately. Come on! Get in there! I love hearing your smarts, your POV, your insight. It's one of the reasons why I subscribe.
Andreessen is truly a shining example of why you shouldn't treat tech investors as if they are tech experts.
For anybody who may want an example of his bumbling abysmal failures to even comprehend the technology he stands behind, see his appearance on the Making Sense podcast episode 324 "Debating The Future Of AI". I was more concerned about AI's potential after his attempts on that podcast to assuage listeners on the topic. My mistake was believing I was listening to an expert in the technology, not an expert in investing. When pressed on how he thinks humans will handle the alignment problem, the only response he has is laughing and saying "when has the smartest person in the room ever been the one in control?", chronically dismissing the question without producing a response of any substance.
In this interview he steps all over himself in contradictions, seeming to both have concerns around the very alignment issue he wouldn't discuss on Making Sense - but only when in the hands of foreign actors. His stance on guardrails on any system or technology fluctuates when it is convenient to a point he wants to make, and treats all forms of regulation as "woke censorship" even after acknowledging that there are forms of censorship which are critical to a safely operating social media for example. He makes a stand that there should be no guardrails on domestic development of AI whatsoever while also expressing deep concern for the outcomes of foreign actors working on exactly the same technology. Perhaps he could have been pressed on why he believes no threats parallel to China-developed AI would exist domestically? Or perhaps exploring the destructive reckless implementation of social media's machine learning (AI) algorithms and how we might not seek to repeat the same mistakes with more powerful versions of AI?
He presents the state regulating AI in any degree whatsoever as a dystopian problem, but sees the state using AI drones to help police the population as somehow not dystopian? Within the same 5 minutes he essentially brands himself as being terrified of a police state and supporting the tools to build a police state.
I would also love to give a quick giggle to his asserting that White House officials actually told *him*, a person of absolutely no security clearance, exactly how they contained information for the Manhattan Project and their exact plan for how to take exclusive control of AI development back from the people in the US. It is hilarious to expect the government to treat this as a feasible goal, as its nuclear parallel would be if teens in the 1940s were all building their own personalized nuclear fission systems from the popularized and exciting trend of nuclear tinkering. The information is out there. And had such a conversation occurred, surely his self-preservation would be in jeopardy by his repeating it casually on a podcast.
AI is not the only topic on which Marc repeatedly contradicts himself, but it is the one most worth mentioning given his self-presentation as some kind of expert in the topic, and this comment is already post-length. If you want somebody to make you money off of technology, Marc is clearly your guy. If you want to discuss ethics around technological development with somebody who actually understands how the technology in discussion functions at fundamental levels, this ain't it.
Perhaps had Bari done any homework she would have asked about the reasons for Sam Altman's quick departure from OpenAI, to possibly explore that OpenAI is taking safe development quite seriously as an ends in itself rather than as a tool of control. But then again, journalistic integrity made no appearances as the goal of this podcast episode. If it was then I would highly encourage setting up an interview with anybody who is actually an expert in the developing technology itself and who isn't guaranteed to simply regurgitate Bari's politics. Surely a good journalist will be able to establish a set of questions that could expose where their statements don't add up if that is indeed the case?
Wonderful, as was you 'cast with Thiel;. But I wonder, and I have wondered in response to so many articles and 'casts, why there is little direct and aggressive focus on the source of these leftward-authoritarian tilts in our social, financial, and governmental institutions and bureaucracies. Who are the people making and executing these execrable decisions, following execrable agendas? They are the youngish activist staffers, almost entirely Ivy educated, who have been indoctrinated their entire youngish lives with a progressive/Marxist POV and who gravitate to power. Our schools are at the root.
This is an awesome podcast on so many levels. I learned so much. Yikes. Most of all, I sure am glad Trump won. I really came away thinking "damn, this guy is really smart." Talks a mile a minute with almost no "um", "ah". And he's helping Trump vet people who are going fix/drain the swamp. That gives optimism. 47 is going to be a lot better than 45.
In 2015 Tad Friend described Andreessen as an “evangelist for the church of technology” - and this has never been truer. Andreessen’s blatant disregard for the acceptance of any guardrails proposed to prevent A.I mismanagement is fundamentalist in nature. We should be extremely skeptical and wary of a tech-made billionaire defending technological advancement at any cost.
I cringe every time I hear Bari and guests like Marc Andreessen espousing the goal of "curing disease." That "we've got a pill for that" mentality already fatally infects the medical profession and bureaucracy. We need to focus on PREVENTING disease.
Smart dude. I just think there is a lot missing from his quick, manifesto talk.
Despite his prescience on so many issues, this feels like someone who's great at one thing and therefore thinks he's great at all things. And Bari, FWIW, please stop letting your guests do 95% of the talking. You tossed him softballs and let him pontificate. It's happening a lot lately. Come on! Get in there! I love hearing your smarts, your POV, your insight. It's one of the reasons why I subscribe.
Andreessen is truly a shining example of why you shouldn't treat tech investors as if they are tech experts.
For anybody who may want an example of his bumbling abysmal failures to even comprehend the technology he stands behind, see his appearance on the Making Sense podcast episode 324 "Debating The Future Of AI". I was more concerned about AI's potential after his attempts on that podcast to assuage listeners on the topic. My mistake was believing I was listening to an expert in the technology, not an expert in investing. When pressed on how he thinks humans will handle the alignment problem, the only response he has is laughing and saying "when has the smartest person in the room ever been the one in control?", chronically dismissing the question without producing a response of any substance.
In this interview he steps all over himself in contradictions, seeming to both have concerns around the very alignment issue he wouldn't discuss on Making Sense - but only when in the hands of foreign actors. His stance on guardrails on any system or technology fluctuates when it is convenient to a point he wants to make, and treats all forms of regulation as "woke censorship" even after acknowledging that there are forms of censorship which are critical to a safely operating social media for example. He makes a stand that there should be no guardrails on domestic development of AI whatsoever while also expressing deep concern for the outcomes of foreign actors working on exactly the same technology. Perhaps he could have been pressed on why he believes no threats parallel to China-developed AI would exist domestically? Or perhaps exploring the destructive reckless implementation of social media's machine learning (AI) algorithms and how we might not seek to repeat the same mistakes with more powerful versions of AI?
He presents the state regulating AI in any degree whatsoever as a dystopian problem, but sees the state using AI drones to help police the population as somehow not dystopian? Within the same 5 minutes he essentially brands himself as being terrified of a police state and supporting the tools to build a police state.
I would also love to give a quick giggle to his asserting that White House officials actually told *him*, a person of absolutely no security clearance, exactly how they contained information for the Manhattan Project and their exact plan for how to take exclusive control of AI development back from the people in the US. It is hilarious to expect the government to treat this as a feasible goal, as its nuclear parallel would be if teens in the 1940s were all building their own personalized nuclear fission systems from the popularized and exciting trend of nuclear tinkering. The information is out there. And had such a conversation occurred, surely his self-preservation would be in jeopardy by his repeating it casually on a podcast.
AI is not the only topic on which Marc repeatedly contradicts himself, but it is the one most worth mentioning given his self-presentation as some kind of expert in the topic, and this comment is already post-length. If you want somebody to make you money off of technology, Marc is clearly your guy. If you want to discuss ethics around technological development with somebody who actually understands how the technology in discussion functions at fundamental levels, this ain't it.
Perhaps had Bari done any homework she would have asked about the reasons for Sam Altman's quick departure from OpenAI, to possibly explore that OpenAI is taking safe development quite seriously as an ends in itself rather than as a tool of control. But then again, journalistic integrity made no appearances as the goal of this podcast episode. If it was then I would highly encourage setting up an interview with anybody who is actually an expert in the developing technology itself and who isn't guaranteed to simply regurgitate Bari's politics. Surely a good journalist will be able to establish a set of questions that could expose where their statements don't add up if that is indeed the case?
Wonderful, as was you 'cast with Thiel;. But I wonder, and I have wondered in response to so many articles and 'casts, why there is little direct and aggressive focus on the source of these leftward-authoritarian tilts in our social, financial, and governmental institutions and bureaucracies. Who are the people making and executing these execrable decisions, following execrable agendas? They are the youngish activist staffers, almost entirely Ivy educated, who have been indoctrinated their entire youngish lives with a progressive/Marxist POV and who gravitate to power. Our schools are at the root.
This is an awesome podcast on so many levels. I learned so much. Yikes. Most of all, I sure am glad Trump won. I really came away thinking "damn, this guy is really smart." Talks a mile a minute with almost no "um", "ah". And he's helping Trump vet people who are going fix/drain the swamp. That gives optimism. 47 is going to be a lot better than 45.
In 2015 Tad Friend described Andreessen as an “evangelist for the church of technology” - and this has never been truer. Andreessen’s blatant disregard for the acceptance of any guardrails proposed to prevent A.I mismanagement is fundamentalist in nature. We should be extremely skeptical and wary of a tech-made billionaire defending technological advancement at any cost.