Superhuman’s CEO sat for an interview about the AI feature that used writers’ names without permission. What he revealed was worse than the feature itself.
They've decided that their computers being able to generate text means that the computers "know" things, so now "knowing things" is something they can own, and no one is allowed to stop them charging for it.
And look at how inadequate our civil courts system is to rein in these assholes. Suppose these writers whose names were used win their suit, it's just money, these guys have billions, here take 0.01% and go away. Nobody ever goes to jail. The threat of prison would clarify the mind and focus the attention, wouldn't it? But this is white-collar crime, so say "Oopsie!" and pay back a tiny fraction of a percent of your ill-gotten gains and go looking for the next law to break.
If we give him the benefit of the doubt—that he can't comprehend the question—then he is, at best a sociopath. Unlike you, Parker, I do not think he was being genuine. Maybe a lawyer advised him to not admit fault, but regardless of his motive, I think he was lying.
Having glimpsed such people in my working-press years, I emphatically agree with Ms. Molloy's analysis. I think they're {all} sociopaths, fueled by the hatred and contempt generated by the savaging of intellectuals that is a primary (clandestine) purpose of USian K-12 conditioning. Thus another example of the pterodactyls coming home...to feast on vengeance.
The Patel/Mehrotra interview reminds me of the Casa Bonita episode of South Park. Kyle refuses to invite Cartman to his birthday party because Cartman's a bully. Cartman attempts to show Kyle that he has become nice by greeting him wearing a nice sweater. Kyle tells Cartman that just because he's wearing a nice shirt, that doesn't mean he's a nice person. Carman says, "I don't know the difference." That's the level of understanding this guy has about ethics.
Heartfelt thanks to you, Ms. Molloy; you have revealed -- with rare insight and courage -- what may be our first purely socioeconomic example of the infinitely Nazified moral imbecility of the nurdish plutocracy that is puppet-mastering the imposition of zero-tolerance ChristoNazi theocracy on the ruins of the failed United States. We already know its politics; but how many of us realize that under the new order imposed by the omnipotent high-tech billionaire Übermenschen*, we are literally no different from antebellum slaves because we are truly allowed to own nothing – not even our given names.
(I should note I am absolutely convinced the real reason the technoführers invented artificial intelligence – never mind the lies by which they pimped it to the Moronic Majority as humanitarian progress – is to perpetuate plutocratic tyranny while simultaneously refining it to ever-intensifying magnitudes of subjugation we cannot now imagine.)
Quoth Ms. Molloy: “Mehrotra sat for more than an hour of pointed questions and still couldn’t understand what the wrong thing was. He isn’t necessarily evasive in this interview. I don’t think he’s stonewalling. He’s being candid. And what his candor reveals is that the basic concept (that a person’s name, reputation, and expertise belong to that person, and you need their permission to use those things to sell a product) doesn’t exist in his head. He can’t hear the question Patel is asking because the premise behind it doesn’t register.”
The bottomless sociopathy of the technoführers' obvious belief they can do whatever they choose with those us they view as üntermenschen is all the more glaring because it is revealed in the carefully reasoned objectivity of a calmly critical essay, for which I submit we all owe Ms. Molloy a debt of gratitude. As I would have said in my long-ago news-editor years, good catch. Damn good catch.
Flabbergasted that Mehrotra is the CEO of a company when he seems to be dumb as a post. Has serving in this role rotted his brain? Is he being deliberately obtuse? Interviews like this seem to demonstrate that our executive class isn't comprised of the best and brightest.
I have a net negative opinion of AI for all the reasons, not just one or two.
They've decided that their computers being able to generate text means that the computers "know" things, so now "knowing things" is something they can own, and no one is allowed to stop them charging for it.
And look at how inadequate our civil courts system is to rein in these assholes. Suppose these writers whose names were used win their suit, it's just money, these guys have billions, here take 0.01% and go away. Nobody ever goes to jail. The threat of prison would clarify the mind and focus the attention, wouldn't it? But this is white-collar crime, so say "Oopsie!" and pay back a tiny fraction of a percent of your ill-gotten gains and go looking for the next law to break.
If we give him the benefit of the doubt—that he can't comprehend the question—then he is, at best a sociopath. Unlike you, Parker, I do not think he was being genuine. Maybe a lawyer advised him to not admit fault, but regardless of his motive, I think he was lying.
Having glimpsed such people in my working-press years, I emphatically agree with Ms. Molloy's analysis. I think they're {all} sociopaths, fueled by the hatred and contempt generated by the savaging of intellectuals that is a primary (clandestine) purpose of USian K-12 conditioning. Thus another example of the pterodactyls coming home...to feast on vengeance.
I am curious about your thesis that the actual purpose of K-12 education in the US. is to "savage intellectuals".
Thanks, Parker, I hadn't heard about this before.
Ditto.
The Patel/Mehrotra interview reminds me of the Casa Bonita episode of South Park. Kyle refuses to invite Cartman to his birthday party because Cartman's a bully. Cartman attempts to show Kyle that he has become nice by greeting him wearing a nice sweater. Kyle tells Cartman that just because he's wearing a nice shirt, that doesn't mean he's a nice person. Carman says, "I don't know the difference." That's the level of understanding this guy has about ethics.
Heartfelt thanks to you, Ms. Molloy; you have revealed -- with rare insight and courage -- what may be our first purely socioeconomic example of the infinitely Nazified moral imbecility of the nurdish plutocracy that is puppet-mastering the imposition of zero-tolerance ChristoNazi theocracy on the ruins of the failed United States. We already know its politics; but how many of us realize that under the new order imposed by the omnipotent high-tech billionaire Übermenschen*, we are literally no different from antebellum slaves because we are truly allowed to own nothing – not even our given names.
(I should note I am absolutely convinced the real reason the technoführers invented artificial intelligence – never mind the lies by which they pimped it to the Moronic Majority as humanitarian progress – is to perpetuate plutocratic tyranny while simultaneously refining it to ever-intensifying magnitudes of subjugation we cannot now imagine.)
Quoth Ms. Molloy: “Mehrotra sat for more than an hour of pointed questions and still couldn’t understand what the wrong thing was. He isn’t necessarily evasive in this interview. I don’t think he’s stonewalling. He’s being candid. And what his candor reveals is that the basic concept (that a person’s name, reputation, and expertise belong to that person, and you need their permission to use those things to sell a product) doesn’t exist in his head. He can’t hear the question Patel is asking because the premise behind it doesn’t register.”
The bottomless sociopathy of the technoführers' obvious belief they can do whatever they choose with those us they view as üntermenschen is all the more glaring because it is revealed in the carefully reasoned objectivity of a calmly critical essay, for which I submit we all owe Ms. Molloy a debt of gratitude. As I would have said in my long-ago news-editor years, good catch. Damn good catch.
__________________
*Mehrotra is now a major investor in Walmart, among the nation's most viciously anti-worker retailers. In other words, his investment also expresses the nurdish moral imbecility. See https://www.marketscreener.com/insider/SHISHIR-MEHROTRA-A0KF5P/
Flabbergasted that Mehrotra is the CEO of a company when he seems to be dumb as a post. Has serving in this role rotted his brain? Is he being deliberately obtuse? Interviews like this seem to demonstrate that our executive class isn't comprised of the best and brightest.
Time for that old Upton Sinclair quote about how it's hard for a man to understand a thing when his income depends on him not understanding it.