93 pointsby healsdata5 hours ago22 comments
  • RivieraKid4 hours ago
    I'm not that young anymore but when I hear Dario Amodei speak and gesticulate enthusiastically about how AI will soon make my job redundant, from a positio of someone who can retire now and who benefits from AI possibly replacing workers, it's very hard to like him.
    • giancarlostoro3 hours ago
      Lets suppose everyone in the world miraculously loses their jobs to AI, who is paying for it? How? What are they selling? What stops the rest of humanity from turning data centers into a pile of ash?

      These people are so disconnected from reality.

      • cute_boi2 hours ago
        And, idk what is the end goal here. Even if 20% of people lose their job the crime and prostitution will shoot up....
        • DANmodean hour ago
          More free time for proper rest, hobby, and well-considered expression?

          I’m not saying Anthropic and OpenAI are going to be the ones to deliver it - but…you really don’t see the ubiquitous need for these?

          • quantified9 minutes ago
            Ain't going to happen and you know it.
      • scotty792 hours ago
        You also just explained how people fearing that AI will take all jobs are equally disconnected from reality. Although in less joyful manner.
        • r_lee2 hours ago
          what kind of bargaining power will you have with "well someone must consume!"?
    • piloto_ciegoan hour ago
      Man, I see this stuff, and I think, "my god! think of the opportunity we have to replace the current economic system with something where we're not all in a fierce knife fight to try to stay employed so we don't starve!"

      We have to stop fearing the machines and start fearing the firmware running on our brains! It's capitalism that's the problem, not the robots... if anything the robots can liberate us from capital's death grip!

      • trescenzian hour ago
        If Dario was up there preaching about replacing today with Star Trek I think people wouldn’t hate it. Everything those at the head of this project say amounts to the current state except abject poverty for everyone but them. When Dario donates his share in Anthropic to fight hunger I’ll consider being optimistic that capital is going anywhere.
      • skupigan hour ago
        >replace the current economic system with something where we're not all in a fierce knife fight to try to stay employed

        Jobs will become even more scarce, so how does that follow?

        >robots can liberate us from capital's death grip

        We are already live in a world sufficiently technologically advanced to feed and house everyone, and yet we don't.

      • grebcan hour ago
        It’s amusing to imagine the oligarchs are going to anymore charitable than currently.
        • piloto_ciego40 minutes ago
          They don't have to be charitable.

          We can literally take it from them. I get why people don't like to think about that sort of thing, but... yeah. We could make AI a sort of public good and do something like the Permanent Fund Dividend or something. There's lots of options even in the "reformist" way of thinking about it. But we shouldn't be naive.

        • SR2Zan hour ago
          It's not their choice, no matter how much they'd like it to be.

          The Chinese models are able to distill outputs into a model of slightly worse performance within a few weeks of each release, and the same copyright exemptions which protect these guys scraping also protect China.

          As long as their lobbyists don't win (and the deck is stacked against them, make no mistake) the future of AI is not going to be owned by the frontier labs.

    • bbor3 hours ago
      Talk about shooting the messenger…
      • JustResign3 hours ago
        A CEO of a large AI company is hardly just a "messenger" here. Come on now.
        • superze2 hours ago
          He is just the poor little head of the snake.
        • bbor2 hours ago
          I… yes, he is. He wasn’t born when this was put in motion by Turing in 1950, and he quit OpenAI to try to stick to their original mission, which was exclusively and ambitiously to prevent what most (who cared to look at it) assumed was inevitable.

          AI isn’t a new iPhone moment, it’s a fire moment. Dario Amodei didn’t bring it into existence, physics did — we’re just slowly working out the cognitive science for the first time after Crysis machines ended up being really good at something that our type of intelligence relies on (intuitive framing via huge neural networks — see The Frame Problem).

          Also this doesn’t really matter in anthropic’s case, but FWIW: we should try to blame CEOs a bit less, and shareholders (capitalists) a lot more. Our system isn’t named ‘officerism’, after all!

      • solid_fuel3 hours ago
        The CEO of a major AI company is not “the messenger”
      • happytoexplain3 hours ago
        He's the guy doing the thing that he is delivering the message about...
  • 59nadir4 hours ago
    How oblivious are people to the world that they think this is somehow strange or hard to believe? Why would they like any of the tech CEOs, or CEOs in general?

    It's hard to see why basically anyone would at this point.

    • mitchdoogle2 hours ago
      Because the products these companies produce are extremely popular, and people benefit from them.
    • bbor3 hours ago
      Sure, CEOs are rarely appreciated in general. But the anti-tech sentiment is absolutely a new and rapidly growing beast. It’s different — trust me.
      • chillfox3 hours ago
        A lot of tech recently has just made things worse.

        Uber made the taxi experience way worse and less predictable.

        Now, I can’t just walk out of a bar, get into a clean taxi and go home, I have to fiddle with an app, wait, wave trying to identify “my” ride, then hope it’s clean and safe. It’s a nightmare compared to what we had before.

        Uber eats made food delivery significantly worse and more expensive.

        It used to be that I could get food delivered for a known fixed price, it would arrive while still hot and it would be delivered to the door. Now, the price is obfuscated, there’s an extra fee for getting the food warm, sometimes the drinks are spilled into the bag, delivery is to the curb so I have to go outside to get it.

        There’s a lot more that has been made worse by tech companies.

        • ishouldstayaway2 hours ago
          I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence here. But I find it difficult to think of a worse example you could have picked than taxis. For all Uber's many faults, the taxi companies were worse. Hell they're still worse.

          Are you old enough to remember the bad old days?

          • jazzcomputer2 hours ago
            Whilst you can argue that services may have improved in some respects, the action towards resolution to problems is carefully monitored to help as least as possible and insulate accountability within a blanket of 'help' agents.
            • dwohnitmokan hour ago
              Infuriating as it is, this is still better than with the bad old days of taxis, which usually had even worse resolution and accountability. It sounds like people don't quite grasp just how bad the taxi experience was.
        • gdulli2 hours ago
          TV has unskippable and targeted commercials now. The list goes on and on.
        • throw-the-towel2 hours ago
          My experience with Uber is the opposite, FWIW.
      • piloto_ciegoan hour ago
        It's just Neo Luddite stuff... we don't have to accept the current status quo. Good lord I'd love it if all my needs were met by the abundance of the planet and I could spend my days working on projects I liked and exploring.

        Why can't anyone see beyond their job?

        • scrumperan hour ago
          Magical wishful thinking is as misguided as even the most rabid anti-tech critique.

          Your - piloto_ciego - needs will never be met by the abundance of the planet. Perhaps your great great great grandchildren may begin to live in such a free way, but you and everyone else alive now will not. There are too many people on the planet, wealth is too unevenly distributed, food production is too unevenly distributed, water is too unevenly distributed, energy production is too unevenly distributed; the only way anyone can get their needs met is by participating in an economy which can allocate and relocate those scarce resources.

          All AI is doing is taking an increasingly large share of those resources in pursuit of ensuring the survival of an ouroboros of circular funding between a tiny number of companies to the detriment of everyone else attempting to participate in that economy.

          AI may or may not prove to be a significant step on the ladder to the ultimate end of scarcity, but there is no possible way that anyone you could conceivably meet, much less be, will ever experience the kind of life liberated from toil that you wish for.

          Electricity promised to eliminate toil and bring us a life of leisure. It did not. Perhaps all technologies have this potential, AI included. That potential will never be realized because relentless and perpetual growth is a necessary precondition and justification for the development and expansion of such technologies, and that growth demands and consumes whatever excess human capacity that the technology freed up.

          The best you can hope for is to exploit the technology selfishly, carving out a life of scholarly pursuit and passion projects while rent-seeking on top of the economic work of humans who couldn't get there as fast as you. But that has been an option since the invention of money.

          • piloto_ciego43 minutes ago
            Dude, I'm building an off grid cabin in the woods. I already live pretty "freely." Dream bigger. We can change and make the world awesome! We have to want to though.

            > Electricity promised to eliminate toil and bring us a life of leisure. It did not. Perhaps all technologies have this potential, AI included. That potential will never be realized because relentless and perpetual growth is a necessary precondition and justification for the development and expansion of such technologies, and that growth demands and consumes whatever excess human capacity that the technology freed up.

            Also, this speaks to me as someone who has never used used a screw driver to turn a screw into a board. The drill driver has made it amazingly better.

            EDIT to add:

            Also, I've lived a subsistence lifestyle before, I'm fairly close to doing it again though I'll still need some money to roll through the household? Dream bigger buddy. It's not all doom and gloom.

        • defrostan hour ago
          It's not the no job part that troubles them, it's the question of where basic levels of food, clothing, shelter are going to come from, and the means to have objects of desire and the freedom to travel.

          Maybe you can't see that, but for a good many people hovering about the knife edge of just getting by such things are a pressing concern.

          Perhaps in future Halcyon days when all needs are met joy will be had by all .. right now there's a looming gap of uncertainty for many.

          • piloto_ciegoan hour ago
            Well, those are political decisions, and WE (not the nebulous "they") are who make those decisions.

            Like, I lost literally everything when I got sick. I think I probably understand "hovering about the knife edge" better than most people on this site. I lost my career, my sense of identity, and more than most can imagine. When you have faced explaining to your son how you might not make it through treatment and how he'll be responsible for a lot of things I am responsible for going forward, you kind of look at these people whining about AI codegen and sigh. This freaking technological miracle that might make their jobs obsolete so they're afraid of it, those people are as children who cannot see that it could literally free them from stupid bullshit... You people are not your jobs, you're not your salary and your job at ServiceNow or SalesForce or whatever can never love you back. The robot isn't a threat to you, the system that values the robot more than you is. It's basic root cause analysis.

            But I bounced back. I fought through it. I kept on slogging through the stress and catastrophe. This whole thing feels like the meme to me, "oh, fist time?"

            You know what I learned though? That we are not always powerless to act. We can get up and go. We can create! We can just do stuff. People need to realize that they have agency! Your life can get better if you get to continue it (hopefully). You are allowed to live how you want to live, you can do things! You don't have to accept being fed dog shit every day. How many of these people bitching and moaning about AI have even thought to try to form a union? How many of these people vote? How many of these people get off their assess and go and participate in some direct action? How many?

            Dammit, why don't I see anyone in the street protesting the war? Why don't I see anyone protesting the lack of social safety nets? Why don't I see anyone doing anything. You know why? Because doing things is hard. Because most people want things to change without putting in any of the work (sometimes dangerous, sometimes stressful) to change things. And meanwhile, I see AI - which could literally be a tool we use to fix the injustices of the world, the disaster of tying people's right to exist to their pay check - that NONSENSE that we mostly all hate, and the response is "oh my god what if it takes my job?" or so-called "leftists" bending over backwards to defend copyright law.

            These people complaining don't want the system to change, they just want to maintain a privileged position within it. But if the system has always been harming people at the margins, is it ok if we go back? "Oh, thank goodness we made AI illegal so I can still have to fill out my manual TPS reports and report to Bob on my progress for the week! How great is that!" The lack of imagination of a better world is astounding and disheartening. The whiners and perpetual malcontents shouting about AI secretly want to be the billionaire, not overthrow a system that allows them in the first place. They want their previously privileged status as a "knowledge worker" to remain special.

            Man, am I the only one in here who read Marx? Bell Hooks? Kropotkin? Dream bigger people!

      • happytoexplain3 hours ago
        The pace of growth of hatred is new (thanks to AI, mostly), but it's been sitting at a simmer for 20 years.
      • rc5150an hour ago
        Whenever somebody qualifies a statement with "trust me", my first inclination and deepest instinct is to ignore that statement. Saying it doesn't make you more believable or authoritative on... anything. Trust me.
  • shirro3 hours ago
    I heard my 12yo uses "AI" as a synonym for crap in a context which had nothing to do with machine learning. There is a pronounced and growing disconnect between the fervently pro-AI messaging on platforms like HN and regular people. Anti-AI sentiment goes deep and has momentum. A few billion dollars of marketing and influencer spend isn't going to turn it around. When the bubble deflates as most people feel it must I think it will only reinforce the negativity.
  • kj4211cash2 hours ago
    I wonder how much of this is caused by income inequality. There are some young people I talk to that are genuinely worried about whether AI will take all the jobs. But there are a lot more that rightfully realize that they probably can't afford the middle class life their parents had and are annoyed at all the money AI is hoovering up and how rich these CEOs are. And that's the surface level. There's all sorts of resentment that hasn't really been thought through and wouldn't exist if we had the sort of real growth in lower- and middle-class incomes that we used to.
    • cucumber3732842an hour ago
      It's not the inequality. It's the lack of hope for a better future. Nobody cares how rich the richest people are when their lives are getting better.
  • jefurii3 hours ago
    What's so surprising? The AI CEOs hate them and are trying to destroy the world they live in along with their job prospects.
  • mvlipwig10 minutes ago
    As a young person, the data I would like to see on this topic are how AI/tech CEOs compare to CEOs on other industries. I would be surprised if Nadella polled significantly lower than the median non-tech CEO, based on gen Z's opinion of CEOs.
  • newsomix9xlan hour ago
    Blaming a tough job market on AI, and claiming AI pivots are the reasons for layoffs, while claiming AI can destroy humanity.

    Who could have seen this coming?

  • piskov4 hours ago
    “Hate” for “Don’t trust” seems like a pure clickbait material
  • ggoo2 hours ago
    The young people are probably on to something. They are the future after all.
  • arjie4 hours ago
    These popularity contests are won and lost based on marketing content on TikTok. If the opinions of young people were relevant they'd be appropriately shifted on demand. Few of them are reasoned positions so they can be shifted one way or the other with targeted advertising.
    • bogzz2 hours ago
      And this kind of thinking is part of the reason behind the hatred.
  • Finnucane4 hours ago
    The title is wrong: it is easy to believe.
  • 3 hours ago
    undefined
  • 2OEH8eoCRo03 hours ago
    Technology is not cool anymore.
  • add-sub-mul-div3 hours ago
    This makes me think of last year when Adobe made a Bluesky account and got shouted off the platform within a day for no other reason than Adobe sucks. I have hope that it signals a trend that certain audiences are simply starting to exercise taste.
  • m4633 hours ago
    Are there any CEOs people do trust? (I wonder how it compares if someone made a list of politicians)

    this seems to be the list:

      65% Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella
      70% Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg
      70% Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang
      70% OpenAI CEO Sam Altman
      70% SpaceX CEO Elon Musk
      75% Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai
      75% Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei
      79% Palantir Chairman Peter Thiel
      81% Palantir CEO Alex Karp
  • Razengan2 hours ago
    More likely it's the politicians and lawyers etc. that are afraid of AI empowering the peasant class, so they're telling the commoners to divert their angst against AI.

    Oh AI will take our jobs..? LET IT!!

    Who wants to work all your life and still not be able to afford a house?

    Instead of asking to be wage slaves your entire lives, demand your politicians to give you UBI.

    • smegger0012 hours ago
      >Oh AI will take our jobs..? LET IT!!

      Except people still need to eat and.pay for a roof over their heaf

      >Who wants to work all your life and still not be able to afford a house?

      That is the fear they have from ai

      >Instead of asking to be wage slaves your entire lives, demand your politicians to give you UBI.

      Except the same people leading these companies do everytjing thaey can to avoid paying taxes that could fund ubi.

      Elons whole Doge fiasco, the google guys fighting wealth taxes in california all fights against helping the people they are displacing. The tech ceos talk a good game about an ai powered life of luxury and ease but its not for you and me its for them and fuck the proles.

  • DecoPerson3 hours ago
    The Butlerian Jihad is coming. It will happen sooner than we think. It will start with Australia, where the popular vote matters the most for political power. “Vote for the Greens! We’ll ban AI! We’ll bring your jobs back! Your savings account will earn interest again! The AI scams will stop!” All false promises, of course. The laws will be pathetic: “Prohibited digital intelligence — any digital system capable of learning, adapting, remembering, recalling, generating, or interpreting information of a textual, visual, audio, interactive or other form.” It will be the Minister’s choice regarding which companies are in the (new) enforcement agency’s crosshairs. Misunderstood situations (like a Tesla running over a child that it didn’t detect) will be used as the war cry. “AI is dangerous! AI cannot be trusted! AI is being used by criminals!”

    I hope my prediction is wrong.

    • legobmw993 hours ago
      A democratic movement leading to increased regulation, even if you think such a thing would be misguided, is hardly a jihad…
    • chillfox3 hours ago
      That actually sounds pretty good to me.
    • binary1323 hours ago
      If there will be any Butlerian Anything, it will be a reaction to the excruciatingly pathetic attempts at legislating the problem into a slightly smaller problem.
  • an hour ago
    undefined
  • Grimblewald2 hours ago
    not really difficult. Genocide is a rather niche thing to like, and supporting it puts you in lockstep with those perpetrating.
  • echelon4 hours ago
    Young people don't know who AI CEOs are without the media apparatus teaching them AI is bad.

    I've watched journalists dunk on this tech since the days of Tacotron. They love to dish out hate and venom and crystalize it around concepts that are easy to sell.

    Not that the Dario and Sam haven't both been deliberately hyperbolic and made themselves easy targets, but the media was always attempting to do this.

    Journalists hate AI and they always have.

    We've seen them try dozens, if not hundreds of things to get the story to stick. Lately it's data centers being built and the stories of neighbors complaining about noise.

    As much as I blame Sam for getting people angry at him, journalists also contributed to radicalizing people against him and turning him into an assassination target.

    This headline is literally trying to reinforce this.

    • atomicnumber34 hours ago
      Yeah has nothing to do with all the "permanent underclass" stuff right?
      • echelon4 hours ago
        Not gonna happen with open source.
        • ohyoutravel4 hours ago
          And yet AI CEOs preach the “AI will take your job and you’ll be homeless” narrative so hard.
          • toomuchtodo4 hours ago
            Their investment narrative, enterprise value, and potential liquidity event depends on this proclamation, regardless of how true it is.
            • vrganj3 hours ago
              In other words, their class interest is in conflict with the vast majority of the world.

              Wonder why people can't stand them.

        • breadramen4 hours ago
          [dead]
    • 4 hours ago
      undefined
    • sublinear4 hours ago
      A significant portion of the population didn't need journalists feeding them a negative opinion.

      More people alive today are educated in computer science than ever before. The same is true of epistemology, linguistics, and broader philosophy. Many have also lived long enough to see previous waves of AI come and go.

      People were already watching the topic closely over a decade ago with DeepMind, AlphaGo, etc. None of the arguments against the current AI methods are new. People were poking holes in statistical methods centuries ago.

      Mainstream media just waits for the right time to pounce and attempt to sway everyone else who is uncertain or out of the loop. They actually started out with a pro-AI stance. That in no way implies the majority was ever out of the loop or believed in any of the hype. The public are not a flock of baby birds waiting for their empty minds to be fed.

      The majority doesn't even care about the principle of the matter. They are far more interested in whether it actually works reliably. The appeals to emotion, political bias, or ego are wildly out of touch and outdated. What you're observing today with young people is not that they have different "opinions", but that they are burned out on all opinions. We forced them to become so much more sophisticated and discerning by pressing that button too many times. You'd be just as cynical if you spent your childhood watching an iPad deliver endless ragebait.

  • voidmain00014 hours ago
    I doubt any of the cited CEOs will care. “And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake I shake it off, I shake it off (whoo-hoo-hoo)” - Taylor Swift.
    • throwaway274484 hours ago
      I don't think anyone is worried about a CEO's ego, lol. Society can only protect them so much in a material sense... just ask Brian Thompson.
    • lukewarm7072 hours ago
      after the rise comes the fall.
  • sthkr4 hours ago
    Automation is such an old concept invented back in the 1st century AD. Furthermore, I don't see people hating the CEOs of Siemens, Honeywell, Schneider Electric, ABB, Yokogawa, Emerson, Allen Bradley, GE Fanuc, Kuka, Hyundia, Mitsubishi etc. They've been automating entire industries & manufacturing with their controllers (PLCs, DCS etc), SCADA, HMI & systems for decades. The first PLC was invented by General Motors back in 1968. China has entire dark factories making phones and their electric cars. The media is only crying now because their cushy office, journalism and art jobs are slowly going away.
    • lithocarpus3 hours ago
      Even to whatever extent this is what's happening, a stopped clock is right twice a day applies.
    • add-sub-mul-div3 hours ago
      I don't come down on anyone for failing to foresee how the web 2.0/social-media/streaming eras would evolve to be used against us more than for us. I'm as guilty as anyone. But in 2026 there's no excuse for failing to apply lessons from the last decade or two to extrapolate where AI is going.