Comment by lancebeet
2 days ago
I think his train of thought is "young graduates generally aren't anti-immigration, so if I insinuate they're anti-immigration if they disagree with me they will be convinced by my argument". I don't think we need to read much more than that into it.
this is how i took it as well. he’s creating a false equivalency between AI and immigrants, and attempting to justify it with “diversity of perspectives” and trying to tell you that to remain intellectually consistent you must embrace or reject both.
You know, I am usually one to immediately jump to "to hell with that" when someone brings up Hanlon's razor, but I think it may apply here.
He certainly is creating a false equivalency between AI and immigrants, but with how tone-deaf this speech is, it may not be deliberate. He likely already has this association.
So then the question would be: why would he have this association?
My only guess is he has a fairly shallow view of both as cheap labor. Which is pretty malicious after all.
I agree. I think it's telling that AI leaders need to rely on fallacious reasoning and trickery to promote their product.
A good product should sell itself.
I feel that AI leaders have been shoving their product down our throats for the last two years (at least).
This commenter seems fishy (AI).
It's important to realize that those people are sociopaths. They delight in the suffering of the common man through their complete lack of empathy.
Also, just because they are very good at climbing the corporate ladder (which is a skill on its own), it doesn't necessarily translate to them being particularly smart on fields beyond their expertise.
3 replies →
He's just trying to meet the graduates at their intellectual level, since the graduates' boos operate at about the same level of depth.
What would a crowds more sophisticated, intellectual, form of answer be?
A hearty "fuck off" I would suppose?