this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
700 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

64938 readers
5860 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

You generally won't understand another person (and adversary especially) if you don't see how their actions perfectly make sense for them, and without conspiracies.

So - there is one matching variant, that Musk sincerely hates bureaucratic kinds of power, but not proprietary kinds of power. Replacing a bureaucrat with (some imagined good) AI in another assumption would be replacing a mediocre human with inherent lust for power with an unreliable automaton, but without lust for power. The good part here is that humans are unreliable too and working bureaucracies compensate for that.

The bad part is that for every failure a person should be responsible proportionally to their input. I'm not sure they'll do that, or I'm sure they won't.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

That would make sense if corporate bureaucracy was not bureaucracy. But it is.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Yes, but corporate bureaucracy is someone's property, so ultimately there is a responsible person, always.