Speaker 1: Media. Hello and welcome to this week's Better Offlying Monologue.
Speaker 1: I'm your host ed Zitron. Now I want to be
Speaker 1: abundantly clear about something. It is illegal to throw a
Speaker 1: Molotov cocktail at anyone, and it's morally objectionable to do so.
Speaker 1: I explicitly and fundamentally object to the recent acts of
Speaker 1: violence against Sam Mortman. These acts of violence are not
Speaker 1: something I endorsed in any way. I'm also glad that
Speaker 1: nobody was hurt. It's also morally repugnant for Sam Mortman
Speaker 1: to somehow suggest, by stating that we should de escalate
Speaker 1: the rhetoric and tactics around AI criticism, that the careful, thoughtful, determined,
Speaker 1: and eagerly fair work of ronand Farroh and Andrew Morantz
Speaker 1: is in any way responsible for these acts of violence.
Speaker 1: Doing so is a deliberate and cynical attempt to chill
Speaker 1: the air around criticism of AI and its associated companies.
Speaker 1: I do, however, agree with miss Altman that the rhetoric
Speaker 1: around AI does need to change. Both he and mister
Speaker 1: Amadey of Anthropic need to immediately stop overstating the capabilities
Speaker 1: of large language models. Mister Ortman and mister Abiday should
Speaker 1: not discuss being scared of their models, as they have
Speaker 1: both done so since twenty twenty three, or being uncomfortable
Speaker 1: that men such as they are in control unless they
Speaker 1: wish to shut down their services or They should also
Speaker 1: definitely not say that their models are conscious or suggest
Speaker 1: that they have emotions either. Anthropic is particularly guilty of this.
Speaker 1: These men should immediately stop misleading people through company documentation
Speaker 1: the models are blackmailing people, or, as Anthropic did in
Speaker 1: its Mythoar System card, suggest the model has broken containment
Speaker 1: and sent a message. This was not the case. It
Speaker 1: was in a completely separate instance to the container it
Speaker 1: was messing with, and it was instructed explicitly to do so.
Speaker 1: This is an act of deceit that is scaring people.
Speaker 1: These men must stop discussing threats to jobs without actual
Speaker 1: meaningful data that is significantly more sound and rigorous than
Speaker 1: jobs that might be affected by AI at some point someday,
Speaker 1: but for now we've got a CHAMPO. Mister Amiday should
Speaker 1: immediately cease any and all discussions of AI potentially or
Speaker 1: otherwise eliminating fifty percent or any level of white collar jobs.
Speaker 1: As mister Ortman should cease predicting when superintelligence might arrive,
Speaker 1: as mister Amiday should actively reject and denounce any suggestions
Speaker 1: of AI creating a white collar blood buff This dangerous
Speaker 1: rhetoric is scaring people. Those that defend AI labs, and
Speaker 1: indeed people have spoken to are anthropic, will claim that
Speaker 1: these are difficult conversations that need to be had, when
Speaker 1: in actuality, these conversations engage in dangerous and frightening rhetoric
Speaker 1: as a means of boosting a company's valuation and garnering attention.
Speaker 1: If either of these men truly believed the things they
Speaker 1: were saying were true, they would do something about it
Speaker 1: other than saying, you should be scared of us and
Speaker 1: the things we're making, and we're the only ones brave
Speaker 1: enough to say anything about it. These conversations are also
Speaker 1: not sensical and misleading when you compare them to what
Speaker 1: large language models can actually do, and this rhetoric is
Speaker 1: a blatant attempt to scare people into paying for software
Speaker 1: today based on what it absolutely cannot do and will
Speaker 1: not do in the future. It is an attempt to
Speaker 1: obfuscate the actual efficacy of a technology as a means
Speaker 1: of deceiving investors, the media, and the general public. Both
Speaker 1: Ortman and Amiday engage in the language of AI dooomerism
Speaker 1: as a means of generating attention, revenue, and investment capital,
Speaker 1: actively selling their software and future investment potential based on
Speaker 1: their ownership of the technology that they say disingenuously is
Speaker 1: potentially going to take everyone's jobs now. Based on the
Speaker 1: reports from his Instagram, the man who threw the Molotov
Speaker 1: cocktail at Sam Ortman's house was at least partially inspired
Speaker 1: by If anyone builds It, Everyone Dies, a doom of
Speaker 1: porn fantasy written by a pair of overlea verbost dunces
Speaker 1: spreading fearful language about the power of AI, inspired by
Speaker 1: the fear mongering of Altman himself. Aortman once suggested that
Speaker 1: Aliaisa Yudkowski might deserve the Nobel Peace Prize one day.
Speaker 1: I also think we need to be clear about the
Speaker 1: circumstances and the rhetoric that led someone to do this,
Speaker 1: and why the AI industry needs to be well aware
Speaker 1: that the society they're continually threatening with job loss is
Speaker 1: one full of people that are very, very close to
Speaker 1: the edge. This is not about anybody being deserving of
Speaker 1: anything but a frank evaluation of cause and effect. Many
Speaker 1: people feel like they're being fucking tortured every time they
Speaker 1: learn social media their money doesn't go as far their
Speaker 1: financial situation has never been worse. Every time they read something,
Speaker 1: it's a story about ice patrols or a near nuclear
Speaker 1: war in Iran, or the gas is more expensive, or
Speaker 1: that there are more worrying things happening in private credit.
Speaker 1: Nobody can afford a house, and layoffs are constant. One group, however,
Speaker 1: appears to exist in an alternative world where anything they
Speaker 1: want is possible. AI people can raise as much money
Speaker 1: as they want, They can build as big a building
Speaker 1: as they want anywhere in the world. Everything they do
Speaker 1: is taken so seriously that the government will call meeting
Speaker 1: about it. Every single media outlet talks about everything they do.
Speaker 1: Your boss forces you to use it. Every piece of
Speaker 1: software forces you to at least acknowledge that they use
Speaker 1: AI too. Everyone is talking about it with complete certainty,
Speaker 1: despite not being completely clear as to why they're doing so.
Speaker 1: As many people writhe in continual agony and fear, AI
Speaker 1: promises but never quite delivers some sort of vague utopia
Speaker 1: at the highest cost known to man, and these companies are,
Speaker 1: in no uncertain terms, coming for your job. That's what
Speaker 1: they want to do. They all say it. They use
Speaker 1: deceptively worded studies that talk about AI exposed careers to
Speaker 1: scare and mislead people into believing lms are coming for
Speaker 1: their jobs, all while spreading vague proclamations about how said
Speaker 1: job loss is imminent but also always twelve months away.
Speaker 1: Ortmann even says that jobs that will vanish weren't real
Speaker 1: work to begin with, much as former open ai CTO
Speaker 1: mirror Mrati said that some creative jobs shouldn't have existed
Speaker 1: in the first place. These are people who sell a
Speaker 1: product with no benefit comparable on any level to its
Speaker 1: ruinous trillion dollar cost, both financially and to the environment,
Speaker 1: and are able to get away with anything and get
Speaker 1: anything they want, at a time when those who work
Speaker 1: hard are given a kick in the fucking teeth, sneered
Speaker 1: out for not using AI that doesn't actually seem to
Speaker 1: make their lives easier, and then told that their labor
Speaker 1: doesn't constitute real work by people that don't appear to
Speaker 1: do anything other than go on fucking CNBC. At a
Speaker 1: time when nobody living a normal life feels like they
Speaker 1: have enough. The AI industry always seems to get more.
Speaker 1: There's not enough money for free college or housing, or
Speaker 1: healthcare or daycare, but there's always more money for AI compute.
Speaker 1: Regular people face the harshest credit market in generations, but
Speaker 1: private credit and specifically data centers can always always get
Speaker 1: more money and more LANDI can never fail. It can
Speaker 1: only be failed if it doesn't work. You simply don't
Speaker 1: know how to use AI properly and will be at
Speaker 1: a huge disadvantage. Despite the sales pitch being this is
Speaker 1: intelligence software that just does stuff. AI companies can get
Speaker 1: as much attention as they need, their failings explained away.
Speaker 1: Their meager success is celebrated like the ball dropping on
Speaker 1: New Year's Eve. They are half our sub war of
Speaker 1: the world's myth thos horseshit treated like they've opened the
Speaker 1: gates of hell. Regular people feel ignored and like they're
Speaker 1: not taken seriously, and the people being given the most
Speaker 1: money and attention are the ones loudly saying we're richer
Speaker 1: than anyone has ever been, we intend to spend more
Speaker 1: than anyone has ever spent, and we intend to take
Speaker 1: your job he mentally unstable took them seriously? Did they
Speaker 1: not think that people would be angry constantly? Tall Talking
Speaker 1: about how your company will make an indeterminate amount of
Speaker 1: people jobless while also being able to raise over one
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty two billion dollars in the space of
Speaker 1: two years and taking up as much space on Earth
Speaker 1: as you please is something that could send people over
Speaker 1: the edge. Every day the news reminds you that everything
Speaker 1: sucks and is more expensive, unless, of course, you're an AI,
Speaker 1: where you'll be given as much money as you want
Speaker 1: and told you're the most special person alive. I can
Speaker 1: imagine it tearing at a person's soul as the world
Speaker 1: beats them down. And I will say that what they
Speaker 1: did was a disgraceful act of violence. But what do
Speaker 1: you think happens when you go to people for years
Speaker 1: and years and years and accumulate so much wealth. Unstable
Speaker 1: people in various stages of torment act in erratic and
Speaker 1: dangerous ways. The suspect in the Molotov cocktail incident apparently
Speaker 1: had a manifest though where he had listed the names
Speaker 1: and addresses of both Altman and multiple other AI executives
Speaker 1: and PERCYNBC discussed the threat of AI to humanity as
Speaker 1: a justification for his acts. I'm genuinely happy to hear
Speaker 1: this person was apprehended without anyone being hurt. These actions
Speaker 1: are morally wrong and are also the direct result of
Speaker 1: the AI industry's deceptive and manipulative scare campaign, one promoted
Speaker 1: by men like Altman and Amiday, as well as DOOMA
Speaker 1: fan fiction writers like Yudkowski and of course Daniel Koko
Speaker 1: Tachlow of AI twenty twenty seven, both of whom have
Speaker 1: had their work validated and propagated via The New York
Speaker 1: Times and Kevin Rus who should feel fucking ashamed of
Speaker 1: himself forever ever platforming these freaks. It's a disgrace. And
Speaker 1: on the subject of dangerous rhetoric, I think we need
Speaker 1: to reckon with the fact that the mainstream media has
Speaker 1: helped spread harmful propaganda and that a lack of scrutiny
Speaker 1: of said propaganda is now causing genuine harm. I also
Speaker 1: do not hear any attempts by mister Altman to deal
Speaker 1: with the actual documented threat of AI psychosis and the
Speaker 1: people that have been twisted by large language models to
Speaker 1: take their lives and those of others. These are acts
Speaker 1: of violence that could have been stopped had chat GPTs
Speaker 1: in similar applications not anthropomorphized by design and trained to
Speaker 1: be friendly. I genuinely believe that these things should not
Speaker 1: be able to have conversations that shouldn't happen. They should
Speaker 1: act like computers, they should act like software. These people
Speaker 1: have deliberately made that not the case. They've deliberately tried
Speaker 1: to make them friends, and are now trying to wash
Speaker 1: their hands of their responsibility. Na Na, It wasn't an
Speaker 1: act of violence inspired by Ronan Farrow publishing a piece
Speaker 1: about Sam Moltman. It was the result of a year's
Speaker 1: long publicity campaign that has since the beginning been about
Speaker 1: how scary the technology is and how much money its
Speaker 1: owners make and how many jobs they intend to take
Speaker 1: as a result. I separately believe these executives and their
Speaker 1: cohort are intentionally scaring people as a means of growing
Speaker 1: their companies, and that these continual statements of we're making
Speaker 1: something to take your job, or we need more money
Speaker 1: in space to do it could be construed as a
Speaker 1: threat by somebody that's already on the edge. I agree
Speaker 1: that the dangerous rhetoric. AI must stop. Dario Amiday and
Speaker 1: Sam Mortman must immediately seize their manipulative and disingenuous scare
Speaker 1: tactics and begin describing large language models in terms that
Speaker 1: match their actual abilities, all while dispensing with any further
Speaker 1: attempts to extrapolate their future capabilities. Enough with the fluff,
Speaker 1: enough with the bullshit, Stop talking about AGI. Start talking
Speaker 1: about this like regular, old, boring software, because that's all
Speaker 1: that CHAT, GPT and CLAUDE are. In the end, if
Speaker 1: Altman wants to engage in good faith criticism, he should
Speaker 1: actually act in good faith, and the same goes for
Speaker 1: Dario Amiday. This starts with taking ownership of their roles
Speaker 1: in a global disinformation campaign. It starts with them recognizing
Speaker 1: how the AI industry has sold itself based on spreading
Speaker 1: mythology with the intent of creating unrest and fear. And
Speaker 1: it starts with Altman and Amiday and their ILK accepting
Speaker 1: any responsibility for their actions. I'm not holding my breath