College students drown out AI-praising commencement speeches with boos (opens in new tab)

Almost every women I am close to has been raped or assaulted.

What part of this do you specifically not understand?

Every abuser in my personal life whom I've learned about--most of whom I'd also met and spent time with before learning of their deeds--are extremely charismatic people who make active efforts to both isolate their partner from their social circle as well as do things externally that increase their reputation amongst both their peers and the peers of their partner. The people who batter, violate, and terrorize their partners are, with unusual frequency (in my experience), the same people who pick up the tab for everyone at the bar, who reliably buy people gifts, and who offer trusted advice and counsel in trying times.

Now, as to why these abusers are like this, that's a more complex thing. I'm not qualified to speak on it, but in the examples I've seen in my life, they're often people who have narcissistic personality disorder, where they're extremely attached to being seen in favorable lights by those around them, and as a result, react viciously to those who challenge that (oft fictitious) image. (This isn't always a conscious process--to put yourself into their shoes, imagine you're inextricably convinced that everyone is trying to defame you, abuse you, and tarnish your reputation at all times (which is probably true for the abuser, because in trying to prevent such fiction, they do monstrous things that fulfill that exact prophecy), so you need to constantly prevent it from happening by becoming trusted and loved by every means necessary, or else.) However, in an effort to maintain this image, they become very well-regarded by those around them, which makes the victim of their abuse sound insane when they try to call them out.

These people also frequently attach high-value people (such as the children they have with the abused) to them so that they are more difficult to harm, hold accountable, or separate from. I have never, ever heard of an abuser who didn't actively maintain an external factor that made them incredibly difficult to prosecute ("but he has kids, and the kids adore him" / "but he donates so much of his time and money to local charities" / "but he's putting X through college", etc). Putting the abused OR people the abused cares about in financial dependence with them (paying for school / rent / resources for them or their lives ones, isolating the abused from avenues to financial independence, etc) is also very common, if the abuser has such resources. Then, the abused trying to get help is made to become someone who's trying to "defame" the abuser, "rob" their loved ones of financial assistance that they depend on, "steal" the children from their father "whom the kids so love". In the abuser's mind, if their being imprisoned means someone is immediately put in harm's way by their absence, they are safe.

The opportunities for the abused to be made to feel completely insane by the world the abuser has created around them are innumerable; the goal of the abuser is to make the victim sound like a monster for trying to challenge the abuser's authority, and usually, by the time the abused catches on to the situation they're now in (during which time the abuser has been nothing but sweet and caring), the abuser has already completed the process, and that world now has extreme consequences if the abused tries to escape it. They're no longer leaving their partner--they're leaving their entire family, their friends, their finances, their entire support network, because the abuser has ingrained themselves into all of it, and done all they can to make their authority unchallengeable (or, at least, convinced the abused of such).

Combine that with the abuser very often making a habit of encouraging the abused to doubt their own judgment, telling them they're stupid or worthless (in words subtle enough that you or I would believe them), or finding people from the get go who already lack such confidence (which the abuser may not even realize is what they're doing--they're just looking for someone who doesn't seem like a threat to them, while simultaneously being incapable of believing that they, themselves, might be that threat, as a result of being blinded by their own narcissism. Which is another factor--how do you convince someone they're being harmful when they're incapable of believing that they have the capacity to harm? The abusers often believe the same lies they tell their victims, and tell them with unwavering conviction.)

Do you have anyone in your life who you hold in very high esteem, whom you are very close to, who you've also heard ill of? When has your gut response been to believe the person speaking ill of them, instead of your trusted, caring, friend, who you've known for years, who would "never do such a thing"? It might be someone so close to you that believing their victim would feel like buying into a conspiracy theory--which is exactly the circumstance that the abuser is trying to maintain.

That's a big part of why.

>nor am I blaming anyone

Saying this doesn't immunize you from valid criticism of victim-blaming. Your question is basically "Why would the victim let it happen again?". I know you're "just asking questions", but we all get the message you are sending here.

Usually the lawsuits start when the money is more likely to come from that, than from enabling the behavior.

For some, it's an increasingly worrisome amount (and type of) drugs, for others, it's women, and for a select few it's children.

As to your point about likely being more due to material conditions rather than age, perhaps you're right....but, then again, on average I'd say the older generation tends to have better material conditions/positions, tends to have at least some savings (maybe retirement, or at least will have more solvent social security, etc.?)...than say young folks who started graduating college from around the great recession to about now? So, maybe we're both right???

There's probably some skew here where old people in general aren't typically on substack, and therefore of the old people who are on substack, they're more "on the cutting edge" than younger publishers, which don't have such skew.

>"Younger Americans are generally more likely than older Americans to think the increased use of AI will worsen human abilities."

Right but what about actual usage? Young believe social media is bad for them, but nonetheless use it.

No, old people just don't bother hiding it, even though they use it less.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/25/34-of-us-...

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to get back to conspiring with my fellow seniors to keep house prices up in my local area.

Social security is a direct transfer of money from people currently working to people no longer working. The amount you get is vaguely based on how much you earned when you worked, but it's not like the money you paid in went into a savings account for you. It went to the people who were already retired. Remember, the first recipients of SS never paid in anything. It's been a long chain of working paying non-working ever since.

401k's are usually based on stocks. The value of stocks is based on the labor of the people who work at the company. The dividends and interest come from that labor too. Once again, at one point you were that labor, but your labor was going to retired people, and now it's "your turn".

And rental income comes from people giving you the money they get from their labor. You used your labor to buy the house, but the current money comes from their labor.

Now the rest of what they are saying is flawed because two of those three would go away if AI replaced all labor. But they are correct in saying that your cashflow in retirement comes from other people's labor, just as your labor went to other people when you were working.

Let's say you take 10% of each paycheck, withdraw it as cash, and put it in a safe in my basement from my first paycheck to my last one 40 years later. The safe is a safe. It earns no interest. No one else contributes to the monetary value of the contents of the safe in any way.

The 40 years are up. You need to pay for groceries. You go down to my basement and behold the fruits of four decades of toil. You take some of it to the grocery store... and it takes up a far, far larger percentage of your cash pile than you thought it would.

Inflation got you. In fact, if we're talking about 40 years ending this last April, it shaved 66.6% off of the purchasing power of the money in that safe.

Uh oh.

So how do you deal with inflation? Instead of putting your money in a safe, you put it in a retirement account. That retirement account creates wealth for you by investing your money into equities, bonds, and other assets.

Equities and bonds typically grow in value by backing the asset with the surplus value generated by the labor of the people who are doing work for the entity that issued the equity or the bond.

Could you also invest in assets that don't get their returns off of other people's labor? Of course, but most retirement accounts in the US today do not do this.

So, yes, you're living off of money that you did not labor for, at least after you exhaust the inflation-adjusted value of the principal you put up for your retirement savings.

People say that universal basic income is a fix, but let's be honest: employers don't pay people more than they absolutely have to right now, and that's with most of the value earned for the employers being provided by people doing actual work for them. What makes anyone think they'll gladly cough up for those who don't work for them, especially at an amount that will allow most people's standard of living to either remain steady or improve?

Since inflation was a thing, so since ever.

If you take the money you labored for and put it in an account without accruing any sort of interest, you will have exactly what you earned to live off of without working.

Since that happens over a span of decades - let's say forty years - that needs to account for the reduction in value brought about by inflation. You offset that using interest generated by loans issued by the institution that operates the account (which is not you laboring) or by returns from owning equities (which is the output of other people's labor).

I suppose the gold bars you mention could rise in value enough to offset inflation without resorting to taking a slice of someone else's economic output, but that's not how most retirement accounts are backed.

> In the US we have a problem that a lot of seniors can't afford to retire.

We also have the problem that a lot of people at the beginning and middle of their lives don't have the standard of living that their parents had despite doing all of the "right" things.

Gen Z and majority of millennials are completely unsympathetic to this problem.

From their perspective, older generations have actively hindered their careers and financial opportunities to the point where they know they'll have to work their entire lives. They also know the US is marching towards financial calamity when Medicare becomes insolvent in the early 2030s, and don't anticipate Medicare or Social Security to exist when they're older.

Today’s Europe is nothing but austerity, there is no consumer protection left, they’ve split the society by having “jobs that only immigrants want” (i.e. insultingly low paying jobs), nobody can buy a flat anymore unless they’re a 10 year senior at a tech company.

Today’s Europe is exactly the kind of world I always imagine the 1970s to be like. The only exception is in the 1970s Europe had a strong communist or socialist opposition which actively fought for a better world with strikes every week (or at least that is how I read European history).

The only new music I'm willing to buy is music that I've seen the artists perform live, or is from established artists that I know and trust are keeping it human.

I have no idea how rare or common my perspective on this is, but it's not impossible that the music industry may see a decline as a result.

So the music industry could go hard into AI or whatever the business folks deem appropriate, with various consequences, while the musicians will continue to music and who knows maybe the rent will be covered.

As soon as tools came about that socialized their skill, opened it to everyone, they immediately and violently opposed it. Which is totally understandable, except when your core ideology you have been pushing for your whole life is to socialize everything.

The hypocrisy is so suffocating that it was like a 9.0 earthquake in my moral landscape.

And yes, before you come at my throat, free local image generation tools get no hatred exemption.

This is the big thing that artists are going through right now.

They're realizing that most consumers of art don't care about the process or the artist. They just want music as background noise, or an aesthetically pleasing picture on their wall.

I wanted to listen to heavy metal songs about office life. I'm not going to spend years learning how to play guitar in order to record it, not to mention that I have a voice fit for old school silent movies. I'm certainly not going to spend money on commissioning a song. But 5 minutes in ChatGPT to write and refine some lyrics, followed by 15 minutes in Suno playing with various prompts, and eventually I got "Per My Last Email"[0], and I was happy.

Let the musicians rage against my shortcut. I don't care. Let them rage against some notion of "quality" and how AI doesn't provide it. Don't care, it's good enough for me.

[0] https://youtu.be/ZVia46yAoMU

> You need to make a world. So you have a rollercoaster in your backyard. And it’ll be the hot thing in the neighborhood for about a week. But once everyone’s had a go… they’ll lose interest, go home n play Sega instead. What you need then, is a fuckin’ theme park… and you AND your music are the theme. People come into your theme park…..check out all this shit… buncha rides, no 2 the same, some merch here and there, special events, dolphins through hoops and all that whack shit. You want people to come to your theme park and feel like they’re a part of this world of yours.

Franz Lizst was a rockstar in 1840 because he could write and play the piano really well. But culture and technology has progressed.

A popstar today can usually sing, dance, write, produce, act. They're business people with a marketing vision and gimmicks to go with it. Polymath performers, creators, and multi-instrumentalists. Technology marches forward and the next generation of artists will be those who adapt the tools available.

We're certainly losing something culturally. Just like this guy[1], who spent 1906 lamenting that the mechanical music machine (phonograph) will ruin music, was somewhat right in his prediction that fewer and fewer people would learn instruments and sing well.

"Then what of the national throat? Will it not weaken? ... When a mother can turn on the phonograph with the same ease that she applies to the electric light, will she croon her baby to slumber with sweet lullabys, or will the infant be put to sleep by machinery? Children are naturally imitative, and if, in their infancy, they hear only phonographs, will they not sing, if they sing at all, in imitation and finally become simply human phonographs -- without soul or expression?"

When I was a really young kid, I used to hum to myself with a buzzing sound to try and copy the early EDM sounds I grew up listening to. I went on to do electronic music production myself. (And that love of electronic music was the fuel that kept me interested in learning classical piano, jazz, music history and more, and why I still have a piano next to my desk now).

Personally, I'm excited to see what the next generation art and artists end up looking like.

[1] https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/21m-380-music-and-technology-con...

There's an argument to be made that this is a necessary component of an economy that can reinvent itself. Maybe. But even if we accept this convenient and self-serving and suspicious premise, there can then be no concession on the point that structuring it this way creates an obligation on the part of the person receiving 200% to "spread it around" and that attempts to dodge this obligation are morally repugnant, socially unacceptable, and ought to be met with harsh political backpressure.

For the last while, that hasn't been the thinking. Instead we have gone for "blame mexicans and let's see if we can't make it 300%!" The response of the kids gives me hope that people might be coming back to their senses on the matter.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

It results in the output becoming available to people at a lower price point.

It's not some artificial social system like unions guilds or cartels, it's a tangible thing that actually produces more output with less (or different) workers.

this. I don't understand why people here are pretending like its not a big deal.

Decreasing human toil for the same level of production should be the dream of _everyone_. If it's only capitalists in favor then that's a massive indictment of the non-capitalists.

This reminds me of the famous Bastiat quote: "If, then, the utility of any branch of industry is to be estimated not by the amount of satisfactions it is fitted to procure us with a determinate amount of labour, but, on the contrary, by the amount of labour which it exacts in order to yield us a determinate amount of satisfactions, what we ought evidently to desire is, that each acre of land should yield less corn, and each grain of corn less nourishment…"

The misunderstanding that labor and not production is the basis of prosperity leads to some pretty silly conclusions.

The tools are just changing. But everything is always changing.

Again: Sure they have much to boo about, but AI? Gen AI can run on your own machine even, you can fully own the means to your production. How is this wasting the time they spent studying? You still need knowledge and understanding of a field to be active in it. When the tools change your internal "world model" is not suddenly corrupt. I hope these kids were taught how to think, not what to think.

That's not even accounting for AI's unique ability to trick CEOs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kids_Aren%27t_Alright

So, yeah, kids these days...are just like the generations of kids before them.

This is kinda obvious to most people, who are already experiencing an enormous amount of sludge in their daily life.

Tech-bro optimism in the face of GenAI is so painfully decoupled from lived reality it's frightening. Tech has not made the world a better place for most people over the last fifteen years, and it is poised to make things much, much worse.

You might also refrain from generalizations like "hn is firmly inside the tech/business world". HN is not a single person, there are a variety of people here with a variety of experiences and opinions and biases.

And... anyway... Google just changed its homepage to make "AI Mode" / LLM responses the norm. LLM usage is just going to be the norm for the foreseeable future. Doesn't matter if a wary set of "laypeople" are reticent. They're still going to ask Google questions and be affected by it in their digital lives.

I think this is just it being blatant. it doesn't necessarily mean anything will come of it but of course tensions will be high if you get an ai pitch instead of a congratulation speech

If you care about society and this technology reaching its potential I hope you find your way to "yes" on giving a shit about other people.

And it is not hypocritical at all to hate or dislike or fear impact of a thing you used.

Basically they believe whatever they did is righteous in a religious way, and how can you not see it? These types of thoughts.

There is no middle ground.

Because they are. Extreme wealth is literally a brain disease. It is physically impossible to remain a normal empathetic human being with that level of detachment from reality. Back when things were 10x, or 100x difference, there was still some amount of reality that just couldn't be abstracted away from you having to deal with. But the modern day reality of >1000x disparity has completely removed that, and they are more or less living as demigods to us in comparison.

Edit: I don’t mean “kids” in a condescending way, I just mean young people taking the first steps into adulthood and careers.

You do realise that “sticking it to the man” is something that kids are uniquely good at?

This isn’t something that’s only just happened in the last generation. It’s how society has operated since before we lived in caves.

> Is that a threat? No. Do you feel threatened? Rest assured, you won't be the billionaire and I won't be a part of the mob, but I'm warning that is what will happen when ordinary people are pushed too far. China taking over the country would be a massive improvement, but they're going to do that by prompting, "Chat take over the US"? Unlikely.

> The people should be asking for basic assistance benefits You have resigned your agency as a free human being. We are just a bunch of humans on earth. If we all decided AI was bad enough we could ban it. The people don't want basic assistance, they want a say in the direction of their lives. At the moment, their lives are being directed by billionaires and those who saw a fancy chatbot and decided to willingly become a serf.

I feel like I see this a lot. oh I'm so old bla bla bla I don't get this oh I have no idea why xyz...

if you're young right now, your future seems to be certainly fucked.

do you think the youth is going to be all upstraight and say "take the bull by its horns!" as they give up any hope of owning a house or having a family?

but I guess they are "fucked in the head". they should be appreciating the S&P500 all time highs on their 401ks... oh right, they're not part of the gravy train. whoopsie