this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2025
487 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

75193 readers
2824 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 news or articles.
  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
all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OctopusNemeses@lemmy.world 1 points 2 minutes ago

The following doesn’t apply to everybody in technology, but it applies to enough of them: At some point STEM education was the only thing the Olds cared about because of something something Asia, and now we have a couple of generations that are highly educated on paper and comically unaware of the complexity of the world outside of WordPress plugins.

I was going to say it's not just technology executives. I'm glad the author addressed this too. It's the whole industry.

People do this to ourselves too. How often do people see a tech nerd and think they're some sort of all knowing demigod.

"You're a tech guy. Here fix my thing."

"Tell me about such and such complex topic complete outside of your niche professional expertise but you're of the All Knowing so opine me your All Knowing wisdom."

Everybody just fucking stop already.

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 7 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

title

Nowadays, everybody wanna talk like they got somethin' to say

But nothin' comes out when they move their lips, just a bunch of gibberish

[–] nixxo@lemmy.world 1 points 38 minutes ago* (last edited 24 minutes ago)

And motherf*ckers act like they forgot about Dre

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

This is so on point and perfect. Like, 'shamelessly abuse my mod privledges and pin if I was a mod' perfect.

[–] ObsidianZed@lemmy.world 27 points 8 hours ago

"Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing [technology executives]. You need to think of [them] the way you think of a lawn mower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' - lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about [technology executives]."

-- Brian Cantrill (Originally about Larry Ellison specifically)

[–] Tim_Bisley@piefed.social 165 points 21 hours ago (6 children)

The issue I feel, is we live in a society that equates money with importance. This guy over here made lots of money so he must be smart right? No, no it doesn't.

The headline should be Stop Talking to Technology Executives, Tax Them.

[–] SoupBrick@pawb.social 70 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (3 children)

I think the root issue is more around the belief that US companies operate off of meritocracy.

I.E. only the most qualified and competent people make it to the top.

[–] DonkMagnum@lemy.lol 37 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Or even more basically:

  • what's good for business is generally not what's good for society.
[–] biofaust@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

In many instances it can be argued that the decisions they make are not good for the business either, at least in the mid- to long-term.

  • What's good for ~~business~~ stockholders is generally not what's good for society. FTFY

US companies operate off of the Peter Principle, psychopathic willingness and ability to exploit others, and a merciless drive for profit.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 4 points 21 hours ago

fry_not_sure_if_serious.jpg

[–] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 34 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

This myth needs to die hard. Inheriting off daddy’s blood emerald mine allows you to start businesses and buy people to make them work. This takes zero intelligence — it takes capital which was not earned. It continues to make money through the labor of shady accountants who know how to keep you from paying taxes, the labor of H1-B visa holder slaves, non-unionized assembly line workers, etc. who you crush and exploit for more capital to keep repeating the same unethical and dumb shit.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

What should cure people of it fast is listening to real estate investment podcasts. These people are often dumb as rocks. They copy each others homework, happen to know the right people, and most importantly, have no ethics. You don't have to be smart to make a fortune in real estate, and you can potentially even do it with zero starting cash, but you do have to forget about ethics.

[–] njordomir@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Toothpaste is for brushing your teeth, not filling the nail holes in the patchy drywall that is our economy! :-)

I helped a former girlfriend move out of her apartment years ago. I brought along a tub of spackling paste to fill the nail holes she'd left in the wall (it was even the kind that goes on pink and then dries white, which is pretty handy). She was mind=blown as she'd never seen anything like it before. I asked her how she filled nail holes and she said she used chewing gum and white-out.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 20 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

US culture conflates money with all kinds of things: intelligence, importance, respectability, work ethic, maturity, creativity, "good genes", even godliness. Many people just can't see the very clear truth that to be super-rich you usually just need to be a lucky asshole.

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 3 points 19 hours ago

Start Talking To Technology Executives About How Much They Will Be Taxed

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

The issue I feel, is we live in a society that equates money with importance.

A guy who can command hundreds of billions is important by way of how much pull he can exert on the overall economy. If Altman says we're going to build a thousand new datacenters that consume a gigawatt of power a year each, and he's breaking ground on the project next week, commodities brokers can't just blink past it.

The headline should be Stop Talking to Technology Executives, Tax Them.

Who is the headline talking to? Unless this is a media journal exclusively consumed by Congresscritters, you're just preaching to the choir. Nobody wants to tax the Tech Billionaires because nobody wants to get tech billionaire money plowed into a rival's campaign.

[–] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works -2 points 20 hours ago

But I like money

[–] rem26_art@fedia.io 55 points 20 hours ago

Here's a similar post by Ed Zitron (Titled: Make Fun of Them). He gives a few examples of complete nonsensical stuff that some big Tech CEOs have said, and goes on to argue that more people, especially those who cover tech in media for a living, need to be far more critical of tech CEOs and not just basically go "oh wow thats so cool" to everything they say.

[–] ruuster13@lemmy.zip 31 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

It’s not even an unwillingness to admit ignorance: it’s the lack of awareness that there’s already a conversation.

This is the take-home point. They aren't unaware there's already a conversation. Their hubris compels them to believe they can answer these questions better than whatever the liberal establishment has come up with.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

From my experience, a big contributor to their financial success is their unwillingness to recognize any of that.

You don't have to run fast, just faster than the bear. They just need to be smarter than the investors who aren't generally all that smart.

While an even smarter person could respond to nuance, then that person loses the investors who cannot follow. So at some point it becomes a liability to be thoughtful and nuanced.

[–] wjrii@lemmy.world 13 points 21 hours ago

Yup. I also liked this, but I'm trying hard not to just quote the whole thing back, because it's all good.

Their wealth insulates them from friction so effectively there’s no incentive or pressure for them to develop an imagination, or diversify their knowledge to the point where an imagination might emerge on its own. I can’t think of a better argument for a humanities requirement than a billionaire being asked “how do we know what is real?” and responding with “cryptographic signatures.”

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 14 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

These people suffer from a severe lack of imagination. Raised to pursue success along a solitary economic metric, they ignore all arts and sciences extraneous to that pursuit. They treat the world outside their interests like a children’s game they’re not really into. Their wealth insulates them from friction so effectively there’s no incentive or pressure for them to develop an imagination, or diversify their knowledge to the point where an imagination might emerge on its own.

That's the startling thing about these tech guys: they are utterly oblivious to life outside of their extremely narrow little domain, and they occupy that domain largely because they never had the imagination or curiosity to look past it. The Silicon Valley milieu they grew up in told them that success consisted in this one thing, and they just swallowed the story and dedicated their lives to it without ever pausing to question, investigate or think for themselves. They buy into ideologies without ever exploring alternatives. They condemn the humanities with no understanding of them, and no interest in learning. They constantly attempt to solve philosophical, existential or cultural problems with technology, because they don't even notice that they're not engineering problems. These are dull people, the sort who'd stockpile art as an investment and status symbol without ever looking at it for more than a few seconds. They're rich financially but in other ways everyone can see how impoverished they are except them.

[–] etherphon@piefed.world 5 points 14 hours ago

I assumed that's why they all started to get into drugs and burning man and all of that, to try to be interesting and cool.

[–] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 22 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

The gibberish from Altman is clearly done in bad faith.

When defining AGI in negotiations with Microsoft, there was no faux-philosophy or other types of word salad. They defined anything that gave them $100B per annum in revenue as AGI, philosophy and technology be damned.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 12 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

What was the last non-gibberish thing Altman has said?

I feel like he has been playing the "you can only speak in gibberish" improv game for as long as I can remember.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 7 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

All the tech CEOs are playing this game, even in the established companies. When was the last time Satya Nadella or Sundar Pichai spoke non-bullshit?

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 12 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Altman is the Rasputin of Silicon Valley though, he is on a whole different level of hallucinatory nonsense that powerful people at the top are enamored by.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Well if he wants to say that chatgpt can replace even CEOs, then he needs to be the sort of CEO chatgpt could replace

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 18 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Unfortunately, you can't just politely ignore people with an eleven-to-thirteen-digit line of credit. That much of a hand in the consumption habits of the richest country on earth commands attention whether you like what they're saying or not.

The real question is whether you're going to be a WaPo-style hack stenographer who shows up at these events and whispers "These people are fairy wizards who can do real God-magic and transform the universe into a Science Fantasy wonderland!" Or you come at it from the Ed Zitron / Molly White / Riley Quinn / Any Sane Person at the Financial Times perspective, tearing into the actual balance sheets and analyzing the runways of these bloated economy leeches, and guestimating what future impact their continued operation will have on the rest of the domestic and global economies.

Tech Execs have to be taken seriously but not literally. When Zuck says he wants a trillion dollar spending line on datacenters to supercharge humanity, you have to read that with the same gravitas as a weather forecaster predicting a Cat-5 hurricane making landfall.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 8 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

You nailed it. Attention accrues to them because of their money and the power it gives them, not the other way around. Without his money and control of OpenAI, Altman would be - along with Elon Musk - just another dork posting on Reddit during his shift at the electronics store, and would get the attendant amount of public attention. He's no smarter or dumber than the average guy, but we don't devote news articles to whatever the average guy thinks about something he heard on a podcast during his commute.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 12 points 21 hours ago

In the past the people who knew about tech were promoting new things and the people who didn’t were skeptical.

With AI the people with less technical knowledge are gung ho and the ones who understand are skeptical.

[–] BertramDitore@lemmy.zip 11 points 21 hours ago

That was an awesome piece. We need more people willing to speak out about all the obvious bullshit like this, but more importantly we need this kind of critical thinking to reach the people who are uncritically driving the continued use of these crappy-ass tools that are burning the planet. I’m thinking about CEOs (who will only do anything if it helps their bottom line), but also about your boomer co-workers who think ChatGPT is the fucking messiah and remind you about it every chance they get.

[–] lmr0x61@lemmy.ml 13 points 21 hours ago

This was a delightful read, especially since I agree with the premise fully. Those people need to shut the fuck up.