- 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.
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.
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".
Copyright is a strange thing to bring up, given I mentioned it not and I couldn't possibly care less about it.
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.
