I could already tell this was just a ranty rant, long before I finished this article. It's a few interesting bits of information wrapped up in a rant. However, this section really discredited the...
I could already tell this was just a ranty rant, long before I finished this article. It's a few interesting bits of information wrapped up in a rant. However, this section really discredited the whole thing for me:
Here’s Chis Messina endorsing the idea that every parent should be using Predictim or the like, EVEN IF IT DOESN’T WORK:
I mean, this is inevitable, even if the recommendations are "questionable". What parent WOULDN'T consult such a service if it were widely available?
No, Mr Messina is not endorsing Predictm. He's conceding the inevitability of it getting a lot of traction, given how it markets itself to parents' fears. What parent wouldn't use a service that promises to keep their delicate kiddies out of the hands of evil psychopaths? Only delinquent parents, that's who! Every other parent is going to play it safe and use this service.
But conceding that inevitability is not the same as endorsing the product.
However, the author ("DHH") isn't going to let mere facts stop his rant.
It's a pity, because this rant op-ed seems to have a valid point underneath all the ranty rantiness.
But that point is less about a so-called "AI apocalypse" than about data privacy and profit-seeking.
I could already tell this was just a ranty rant, long before I finished this article. It's a few interesting bits of information wrapped up in a rant. However, this section really discredited the whole thing for me:
No, Mr Messina is not endorsing Predictm. He's conceding the inevitability of it getting a lot of traction, given how it markets itself to parents' fears. What parent wouldn't use a service that promises to keep their delicate kiddies out of the hands of evil psychopaths? Only delinquent parents, that's who! Every other parent is going to play it safe and use this service.
But conceding that inevitability is not the same as endorsing the product.
However, the author ("DHH") isn't going to let mere facts stop his rant.
It's a pity, because this
rantop-ed seems to have a valid point underneath all the ranty rantiness.But that point is less about a so-called "AI apocalypse" than about data privacy and profit-seeking.
I was reminded of this
https://logicmag.io/01-interview-with-an-anonymous-data-scientist/
Only the linked article was better worded
What a shit website. Can anyone paste it here or post better link?
It works fine for me, and I'm on my phone.