Hacker News Reader

Comment by marricks | Hacker News Reader

They didn’t become such a wealthy group by letting competition foster. I have no doubt they believe they could be doing the right thing but I also have no doubt they don’t want other people making the rules.

Truth be told, who else really does have a seat at the table for dictating such massive societal change? Do you think the copy editor union gets to sit down and say “I’d rather not have my lunch eaten, I need to pay my rent. Let’s pause AI usage in text for 10 years.”

These competitors banded together and put out a statement to get ahead of any one else doing the same thing.

View on HN

Not all of them are wealthy, a significant number are academics.

That doesn’t erase the need of cynicism. Many people in academia come from industry, have friends in industry, or other stakes. They might have been persuaded by the rhetoric of stakeholders within industry (you saw this early in the climate debate; and still do), and they might also be hoping to get a job in the industry later on. There is also a fair amount of group think within academia, so if a prominent individual inside academia believes the lies of industry, chances are the majority within the department does.

What’s more likely, that everyone on this list just happens to have some overlapping ulterior motive or that they actually believe it?

Quite often these intersect. But also it is healthy to question the motives of signaturees asking for public policy. Especially when a significant number of them are direct stakeholders. When an academic signs such a list, their motives should be equally questioned.

Cool username btw. Any relation to the band?

The people I know on the list are academics and do not seem to be any wealthier than other academics I know. I'm quite certain the private industry signatories are going to entirely advocate for their interest just as they do in any other policy discussion.

Got it, thank you for the clarification!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com