Also, you’re suggesting because a company got away with bad behavior in the past we should never expect better of any other company going forward?
and making bank. I know which option i'd choose.
It's worth talking about the others too for sure.
Not every article or essay needs to talk about all of them. Sure, it would be improved if it at least mentioned in passing what is known of any other large corporations making specifically AI deals with authoritarian governments. (Such as all of them with Israel).
But not every article needs to talk about everything. The argument that a given article or point should not have been made because it didn't talk about other things -- usually will result in less talk about any of the things, not more. And that's often the intent of such an argument.
No, they are saying it is frustrating to see the focus on OpenAI rather than, for example, Cisco and Oracle, in an article with this particular title. On the topic of “supercomputers for autocrats”, a reader may be interested in what Oracle is up to.
https://fortune.com/2025/02/14/larry-ellison-ai-centralized-...
It is odd to focus such a broad topic on OpenAI.
This is not the point. You are correct that we can focus on more than one thing at a time and that’s why different articles are about different things. This article is about “Building supercomputers for autocrats” and it is odd that it focuses on a single aspect of that topic.
Corporate news media hyperfocuses on the clickbait, rage-inducing, enagement-farming stories. And passes over companies like Oracle because they spend a ton on advertising (i.e. they kiss the ring)
Until the same measures are uniformly taken with the rest of the actors in the industry, this is nothing more than virtue signalling.
Denouncing X should also mean denouncing actors close to X, for a given domain space F(actor).
Nobody has time for that.
For example, one common target for activists is Nestlé. Most people barely have time to think about Nestlé at all, and of those who do, I think most are oblivious that e.g. Maggi is a brand that Nestlé owns.
I could probably do this XKCD but about activists and company names instead of geochemists and olivine/feldspar/quartz: https://xkcd.com/2501/
It's more than a generation; IBM literally provided computers that ran the holocaust.
This was an excellently researched book - the 2012 edition has a lot of additional documentation that really highlighted the level of support IBM threw behind the railway logistics planning.
IBM literally provided punch card record keeping equipment. IBM literally didn't provide computers. Computers literally didn't exist.
Computer: 1. One who computes; a calculator, reckoner; spec. a person employed to make calculations in an observatory, in surveying, etc. [OED, 1923]
Punch cards held tables of records, and the unit record equipment were nowhere close to the modern meaning of ‘computer’. (The human computers were probably Turing-complete, though.)
Not that I disagree but you're whatabouting your way into an argument, and you used to be against it [0]. And you're not even doing it to establish a pattern or bring up some history, it's just for the sake of it.
It's an analysis about OpenAI. You agree that the author is not wrong but immediately detract from the credibility of the analysis because they haven't included a specific "whatabout"?