AI, "Humanity", and Dr. Manhattan Syndrome: A Communications Intervention

I suspect a big factor here is that there are multiple audiences. Many of the things a CEO might say to acknowledge consumers' concerns (let alone solve them) are also things that the investors might not appreciate hearing, and that endangers the principle of Line Goes Up.

Similarly, what employees of AI-adopting companies want to hear might not be what their managers want. One would rather their job become easier or more productive, and the other would rather cut positions or have a better bargaining position when discussing pay.

> Humanity, the concept, is an extraordinarily comfortable thing to care about. It’s theoretical. It’s malleable. [...] People, on the other hand, are a nightmare.

This reminds me of a short 2018 post that went viral, regarding how "the unborn" are an easy group of people to advocate for as long as they stay that way. [0]

____

[0] Primary source seems to either require login or has link-rot, so a secondary would be: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10357009-the-unborn-are-a-c...

G.K. Chesterton, St. Francis of Assisi

Plus your resources allow consumption of things otherwise out of your reach: women, exotic travel, yachts, mixing with other elites. Also the darker things (Epstein elites).

So after a while you not only won’t mix with the hoi polloi, you literally can’t because you share nothing with them.

The trappings of wealth start to include political influence, which seems to encourage the idea that being wealthy makes you some kind of expert because important people listen to you and will do what you want with an appropriate consideration or contribution.

There is an argument in here for limiting wealth to avoid this descent into disconnected sociopathy.