has been discussed in the areas of environmental issues, health, energy etc. along with the concepts of what is called "dangerous knowledge". I've worked in engineering and technical fields and I can attest that the engineers of today are very different than those of 40 or 50 years ago. There is a hubris that is far more prevalent and combined with a deepening disconnect in universities efforts to mandate courses in arts, literature, humanities etc. for those seeking STEM degrees we are seeing a larger and larger problem of STEM graduates with less and less concern about the potential negative impacts their work can have on society and individuals.

I'm sure a great portion of them can be found that can tell you the latest development in their field but cannot tell you the last time they just went outside and sat in the grass and looked at the sky. Nor could they tell you why doing things like that for no particular reason is essential for human beings. They would believe that these things are a "waste of time" and that people should be always looking to put their efforts into "getting ahead" and "doing more".

This is the plague that will do them in. And we poors that are left out have a 50/50 shot.

and that I never brought children into the world.

Thank you for posting this article.
Going to the bookstore to purchase the book this week.
Actually thinking of getting more than one copy, because I know people who would really like to read it.

It's like all the dystopian sci-fi I've read and watched over the last 50 years has come true over night.

And to think Chump turned out to be the catalyst is mind boggling.

the idea that it will save civilization and usher in utopia is wishful thinking.

If anything, it will concentrate wealth & power in fewer and fewer hands.

But gotta "win the AI race with Jaina!!"



I particularly enjoyed the quote "Go to space and you can ignore the scarcity of resources."



From the article:

Ketcham: I’ve noticed a phrase you like to use: That’s not how the world works. These people, it seems, are divorced from the reality of the world.

Becker: Yeah, they are. They have completely misunderstood how the world works, how science works, how people work. I know I keep hammering away at Andreesen, because he’s my least favorite person in the entire book. He says in that unhinged manifesto of his that he is the keeper of the true scientific method, contrasting himself with academic scientists. Well, buddy, first of all, you wouldn’t need to say it so loud if it were true. And second, the real scientific method is not to have a statement of beliefs about what the world is and how it works, or what the inevitable future of technology is. The real scientific method is to be curious and questioning about the world and be open, constantly open, to the possibility that you’re wrong – in fact, expecting that you’re wrong. And that’s not something these people are capable of.