Larry Ellison: vast AI surveillance can ensure citizens are on best behavior (2024)(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
Larry Ellison: vast AI surveillance can ensure citizens are on best behavior (2024)
https://www.businessinsider.com/larry-ellison-ai-surveillance-keep-citizens-on-their-best-behavior-2024-9
147 comments
This is not paranoid, this is the logical conclusion to the control grid they are actively building. We are most of the way there with near zero resistance.
But developing nations are already there. China has a social credit system and the Russians have had convenient ways of denouncing each other for their citizens for decades.
It might be worth reading this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System#Misconcep...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Looking at repeated pushes for breaking or banning encryption it is pretty clear that privacy of citizenry is no priority for anyone in power. Slow degradation is inevitable.
You have been since the 1960s. The NSA and CIA entitled itself to intercept and read mail of United States citizens sent or received from foreign countries. The NSA built room 641A and captured traffic in the bulk with very wide filters. There is a data center in Utah which stores all of our cellular telephone call and message "metadata."
> You have been since the 1960s. The NSA and CIA entitled itself to intercept and read mail of United States citizens sent or received from foreign countries.
Every country has has this ability for much longer.
Every country has has this ability for much longer.
I can't speak to that. What I can say is that this activity is absolutely illegal according to the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
> What I can say is that this activity is absolutely illegal according to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
The problem with this statement is it's historically inaccurate. Cops have been pilfering through suspects' things with no reason since the dawn of our republic. (Landowners, on the other hand, could stand their ground.)
The better argument is we have advanced enough that this should be illegal.
The problem with this statement is it's historically inaccurate. Cops have been pilfering through suspects' things with no reason since the dawn of our republic. (Landowners, on the other hand, could stand their ground.)
The better argument is we have advanced enough that this should be illegal.
> is it's historically inaccurate.
Not at all. It's the 4th Amendment. It's particularly clear on this point. Perhaps "historically inaccurate" is not the phrase you meant to use. You might also notice that the CIA itself believes these activities were and are illegal. See "Project HTLINGUAL."
> Cops have been pilfering through suspects' things with no reason since the dawn of our republic.
They get warrants first or they are, in fact, committing a crime. It is, admittedly, a difficult crime to prosecute, but further evidence against your phrasing is that this is in fact a crime that does get charged.
> Landowners, on the other hand, could stand their ground.
Owning land is not at all a distinction. "Persons, Houses, Papers and Effects" are. That land is not a part of this enumerated list is actually a particular point in the enforcement of this law and creates a "plainly visible" standard that is applied by courts.
> The better argument is we have advanced enough that this should be illegal.
It's illegal. Full stop. Vagaries of enforcement are not material to this point.
Not at all. It's the 4th Amendment. It's particularly clear on this point. Perhaps "historically inaccurate" is not the phrase you meant to use. You might also notice that the CIA itself believes these activities were and are illegal. See "Project HTLINGUAL."
> Cops have been pilfering through suspects' things with no reason since the dawn of our republic.
They get warrants first or they are, in fact, committing a crime. It is, admittedly, a difficult crime to prosecute, but further evidence against your phrasing is that this is in fact a crime that does get charged.
> Landowners, on the other hand, could stand their ground.
Owning land is not at all a distinction. "Persons, Houses, Papers and Effects" are. That land is not a part of this enumerated list is actually a particular point in the enforcement of this law and creates a "plainly visible" standard that is applied by courts.
> The better argument is we have advanced enough that this should be illegal.
It's illegal. Full stop. Vagaries of enforcement are not material to this point.
It wasn’t until the 1960s that the searches that violated the 4th amendment were excluded in non-federal contexts.
Mapp v Ohio is one of the most landmark cases in 4th amendment law and the ruling came down in 1961. So when someone tells you that your maximalist interpretation isn’t historically accurate, they aren’t harkening back to colonial era rules.
Mapp v Ohio is one of the most landmark cases in 4th amendment law and the ruling came down in 1961. So when someone tells you that your maximalist interpretation isn’t historically accurate, they aren’t harkening back to colonial era rules.
(To be clear for everyone else: at the federal level, the exclusionary rule dates back to the turn of the 20th century and builds on cases from the late 19th century [Boyd v US is I think one of the big ones], and, I think it's important to keep in mind, we're talking about a period of time during which the Bill of Rights itself was just beginning to be formally incorporated on the states).
There is no "risk". It will happen for sure.
> a surveillance state. Arguably, we may already be in one.
If the lawmakers openly demonize and marginalise the unprivileged (minorities, dissenters, protestors), then it is safe to assume that it is already the case, just unevenly applied, so that the majority would continue to support the State as it increasingly grows restless with the fringe even more.
If the lawmakers openly demonize and marginalise the unprivileged (minorities, dissenters, protestors), then it is safe to assume that it is already the case, just unevenly applied, so that the majority would continue to support the State as it increasingly grows restless with the fringe even more.
It's got very little to do with any particular "marginalized group" -- We will all be marginalized under such a system. The people behind it will use anyone to advance the dystopian agenda, including "unprivileged" people. The majority of people are not on board with the agenda, but it hardly matters what they want because they aren't actually in control and most of them don't see the big picture.
Throw in some LLM capable of interpreting surveillance camera data and it’s going to be hell on earth.
Well, if their dream is to turn twitter to whatsapp then we also will lose some control of our money.
this is fine for countries that have governments that look after it's citizens, like Europe where it is already relatively safe. for the US, where the wealth disparity is rapidly increasing and only an uprising is going to change anything, I'd say it's an oppressive till of the rich to micro-police the less fortunate.
china has it and is still destabilizing. Such systemd can work if its a panopticon of all on all, but they do not work if centralized and in service to a few.
Does Larry really lack enough self awareness to not realize these kind of statements make him sound like an orwellian super villain, or perhaps he does and simply does not care?
The latter is surely more frightening.
The latter is surely more frightening.
Larry doesn't care about anything other than Larry. For Larry, the biggest issue facing him beyond how he can live forever, is how he can ensure nobody ever commits a crime against him. The best way to ensure nobody ever commits a crime against him is to monitor every living human on the planet.
Any crime he commits can be figured out in courts with his high-priced lawyers so the idea that AI constantly watching you would be repressive seems misplaced to Larry.
For people that think I'm joking, at one point his primary philanthropic contributions were almost exclusively to life-extending efforts:
>Take the massive amount of money he once gave to life-extension research, which was the core focus of his philanthropic efforts.
>And so over the course of 15 years at the beginning of the 21st century he would donate over half of a billion dollars for anti-aging medical research, at a time when the field was seen as fringe science.
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/8/24/21369773/larry-ellison-...
Any crime he commits can be figured out in courts with his high-priced lawyers so the idea that AI constantly watching you would be repressive seems misplaced to Larry.
For people that think I'm joking, at one point his primary philanthropic contributions were almost exclusively to life-extending efforts:
>Take the massive amount of money he once gave to life-extension research, which was the core focus of his philanthropic efforts.
>And so over the course of 15 years at the beginning of the 21st century he would donate over half of a billion dollars for anti-aging medical research, at a time when the field was seen as fringe science.
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/8/24/21369773/larry-ellison-...
The point isn't about preventing people from commiting crimes against him. It is surely that oracle database would back the data centers run by the surveillance state.
With the announcements lately, I would be unsurprised to see an edict stating “federal funding requires the use of Oracle rdbms”.
Thousands of open source projects would support Oracle in short order.
Thousands of open source projects would support Oracle in short order.
I'd be surprised if Oracle's cloud infrastructure even relied on Oracle DBs.
Hmm, but has Larry considered that a scurry of squirrels may commit organized crime against his empire? Maybe he should invest in some deterrence there.
The trend has been more openness in this sort of behavior. After all, the public hasn’t seemed to respond to it with much negativity other than people occasionally complaining about these sorts of behaviors online. The highest level complaint seems to be public protest, which don’t seem to garner enough momentum to push change.
If there’s no repercussions, why not be transparent? Scary indeed, as it’s quite telling of the direction we’re headed in, IMHO.
If there’s no repercussions, why not be transparent? Scary indeed, as it’s quite telling of the direction we’re headed in, IMHO.
If you're a billionaire today, you might be forgiven for thinking the current state of extreme wealth inequality is completely normal. You will obviously want to lock in a system that has benefited you and ensure that nothing ever changes.
Historically speaking though, wealth inequality in developed nations is reaching a point at which, as often as not, revolutions happen. Sometimes they're bloody. Sometimes not. There are two approaches to avoid a revolution:
1. Back off from controlling government and let reform happen gradually. Your wealth will be lessened, but you'll probably remain one of the richest people alive.
2. Lock everything in with a totalitarian panopticon state that you control. AI surveillance offers a huge advantage over surveillance networks used by past totalitarian regimes. e.g. East Germany's Stasi showed the limitations of surveillance in an age where humans had to do it themselves. With AI to do it, you can avoid employing a large portion of the population to watch the rest, and you can keep the power of that surveillance network concentrated in just a few hands, preferably yours.
It's clear which approach is being attempted in the U.S.. I'd just point out that #2 is inherently high-risk. If you lock in wealth inequality at today's levels (or make them worse) and then use repressive means to prevent any form of push-back, the state becomes brittle. If it breaks, the result could be a bloodbath. Approach #1 is much safer. Yet, here we are.
Historically speaking though, wealth inequality in developed nations is reaching a point at which, as often as not, revolutions happen. Sometimes they're bloody. Sometimes not. There are two approaches to avoid a revolution:
1. Back off from controlling government and let reform happen gradually. Your wealth will be lessened, but you'll probably remain one of the richest people alive.
2. Lock everything in with a totalitarian panopticon state that you control. AI surveillance offers a huge advantage over surveillance networks used by past totalitarian regimes. e.g. East Germany's Stasi showed the limitations of surveillance in an age where humans had to do it themselves. With AI to do it, you can avoid employing a large portion of the population to watch the rest, and you can keep the power of that surveillance network concentrated in just a few hands, preferably yours.
It's clear which approach is being attempted in the U.S.. I'd just point out that #2 is inherently high-risk. If you lock in wealth inequality at today's levels (or make them worse) and then use repressive means to prevent any form of push-back, the state becomes brittle. If it breaks, the result could be a bloodbath. Approach #1 is much safer. Yet, here we are.
You forgot about 3. Brave new world.
Mass of people that will not revolt and storm the castles because they will have computer games, recreational drugs and not so bad life.
That will not care about voting so 1. would not happen and 2. would not end up in French style revolution as they wouldn’t mind state control.
Mass of people that will not revolt and storm the castles because they will have computer games, recreational drugs and not so bad life.
That will not care about voting so 1. would not happen and 2. would not end up in French style revolution as they wouldn’t mind state control.
Brave New World is not a historical example, it is a fictional one.
And if AI is what the developers hope it to be, the fictional reference points would expand to anything from Manna to The Culture to I Have No Mouth.
And if AI is what the developers hope it to be, the fictional reference points would expand to anything from Manna to The Culture to I Have No Mouth.
>Approach #1 is much safer. Yet, here we are.
I do not believe Approach #1 has ever been attempted without quite a bit of blood leading up to its attempt, and I think it has only been attempted a few times even so, approach #2 - oppression, with resulting bloodiness - seems to be the norm.
I do not believe Approach #1 has ever been attempted without quite a bit of blood leading up to its attempt, and I think it has only been attempted a few times even so, approach #2 - oppression, with resulting bloodiness - seems to be the norm.
I believe making corporations actually pay high taxes is an example of this. IIRC that did occur in the 50's and 60's in America.....
One could argue that Solon the Lawgiver did #1 2600 years ago - abolishing debt slavery, supposedly abolishing most debts, freeing some public lands, coming up with council of Four Hundred.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solon
Of course Oligarchs still took power afterwards from time to time - The Eupatridae (Aristocratic Families), then tyranny by Peisistratos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solon
Of course Oligarchs still took power afterwards from time to time - The Eupatridae (Aristocratic Families), then tyranny by Peisistratos.
1989 Poland government change from Communist regime to Democratic government.
https://www.nybooks.com/online/2009/12/09/1989-poland-was-fi...
https://www.nybooks.com/online/2009/12/09/1989-poland-was-fi...
Regime change when an occupying power leaves is a different scenario from changing underlying power structure of society where the controlling powers are in the society.
One reason for that is that when an occupying power leaves regime change must happen.
One reason for that is that when an occupying power leaves regime change must happen.
After soviets left there was high risk of basically civil war.
That happened for example in Romania in 1989, somehow it did not happen in Poland.
That happened for example in Romania in 1989, somehow it did not happen in Poland.
I don't think the Romanian Revolution counts as a civil war. Over the space of a week or so, it was: protests/riots, violent crackdown leading to military defection/coup.
Look at Syria for how a similar pattern of events did lead to civil war. Ceaușescu just didn't represent a section of the country with an interest in fighting for his regime. The risk of instability when an authoritarian passes is if they have been holding together a country with significant ethnic/sectarian/political divisions like Yugoslavia.
Look at Syria for how a similar pattern of events did lead to civil war. Ceaușescu just didn't represent a section of the country with an interest in fighting for his regime. The risk of instability when an authoritarian passes is if they have been holding together a country with significant ethnic/sectarian/political divisions like Yugoslavia.
if you are a billionaire today, you are painfully aware that the wealth you have us on a timer, as human society burns through the resource windows and then decomplexifies and falls back into a sort of survival bootloop. What you buy with surveillance is tradeoffs of stability aka time. What you do with that time is to forward all vectors to escape the loop in some futures and prevent the loop from becoming hyper destructive due to gadgets from the golden times.
A panopticon thus exists in phases. first phase (centralized) to buy time, stabilize a complex society, then to help forward a gracefull decay, finally (decentalized) to prevent the decayed and loopstuck society from further self damage and keep complexity recover vectors open.
The dream is a Afghanistan with phones that can bootstrap itself out of the failed state.
A panopticon thus exists in phases. first phase (centralized) to buy time, stabilize a complex society, then to help forward a gracefull decay, finally (decentalized) to prevent the decayed and loopstuck society from further self damage and keep complexity recover vectors open.
The dream is a Afghanistan with phones that can bootstrap itself out of the failed state.
> If you lock in wealth inequality at today's levels (or make them worse) and then use repressive means to prevent any form of push-back, the state becomes brittle.
It doesn't need to. We had oligarchs before capitalism.
> "...trend has been toward more openness...
No offense but you're just injecting a trendy opinion without knowing anything about the man's history. Ellison was notorious even in the '90s-'00s and never made any real effort to hide it. The book "The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison: God Doesn't Think He's Larry Ellison" (yes, that's its actual title) came out all the way back in 2003, the title being a quip that had already been circulating for many years by that time.
No offense but you're just injecting a trendy opinion without knowing anything about the man's history. Ellison was notorious even in the '90s-'00s and never made any real effort to hide it. The book "The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison: God Doesn't Think He's Larry Ellison" (yes, that's its actual title) came out all the way back in 2003, the title being a quip that had already been circulating for many years by that time.
Honestly I think I prefer openness, although I'll admit it's hard to be precise about what's ok and what isn't. In the spirit of free speech, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." At the same time, defending somebody's right to speech does _not_ mean that individuals can't embargo / "cancel" that person -- I think this behavior is itself speech of a sort.
What would you change about the present situation? I feel that public protest is roughly all that can be allowed in response to speech (ie, speech in response to speech). Surely he shouldn't be jailed/fined/doxxed for this speech? What more should be allowed? Or is it just that the public protest isn't as strong as you'd want?
What would you change about the present situation? I feel that public protest is roughly all that can be allowed in response to speech (ie, speech in response to speech). Surely he shouldn't be jailed/fined/doxxed for this speech? What more should be allowed? Or is it just that the public protest isn't as strong as you'd want?
Speech and thought are interlinked. Encouraging our society's most powerful to pander to social media in what they say undoubtedly affects how they think.
Sure but what’s the alternative? Are you going to decide what people can say? This is all very 1984, if you haven’t read it you might find it interesting
The thing that makes any given arrangement of society work (or not work) is how quickly/cheaply it removes decision-making power from people who demonstrate poor judgement.
This is a difficult task, because people with decision-making power tend use that power to alter the system to solidify their position.
Capitalism, at its finest, does this by letting people make bad decisions with their money until they haven't got any. This was an improvement on, say, holding wars until enough people decision-makers get killed off. However, a variety of long-term policy shifts have meant this no longer appears to happen - merely possessing capital is so profitable that even astonishingly poor decisions cannot reduce your wealth enough to matter.
IMO, through this statement Larry Ellison has demonstrated the kind of poor judgement which a functional society cannot tolerate in a decision-maker, and lacking an effective way to remove this from the decision-maker pool is the primary cause of societal trouble today.
This is a difficult task, because people with decision-making power tend use that power to alter the system to solidify their position.
Capitalism, at its finest, does this by letting people make bad decisions with their money until they haven't got any. This was an improvement on, say, holding wars until enough people decision-makers get killed off. However, a variety of long-term policy shifts have meant this no longer appears to happen - merely possessing capital is so profitable that even astonishingly poor decisions cannot reduce your wealth enough to matter.
IMO, through this statement Larry Ellison has demonstrated the kind of poor judgement which a functional society cannot tolerate in a decision-maker, and lacking an effective way to remove this from the decision-maker pool is the primary cause of societal trouble today.
Are you saying that we/some govt org should seize his assets because he had a bad opinion?
Fwiw I agree with you in disliking the “eternal power“ dynamic that seems to come with being rich. I’d prefer to solve this by requiring more disclosure in lobbying efforts, restricting the kinds of donations you can make, etc. Money shouldn’t lead to political power IMO.
Fwiw I agree with you in disliking the “eternal power“ dynamic that seems to come with being rich. I’d prefer to solve this by requiring more disclosure in lobbying efforts, restricting the kinds of donations you can make, etc. Money shouldn’t lead to political power IMO.
> Are you saying that we/some govt org should seize his assets because he had a bad opinion?
I'm saying that a system in which someone with poor judgement manages to accrue his level of assets is broken somewhere.
Policy settings under which "having capital" allows you to grow your wealth while making terrible decisions are bad policy settings.
Various alternative policies exist, the most obvious of which is adjusting taxation settings such that growing your wealth requires consistently making good judgement calls.
I'm saying that a system in which someone with poor judgement manages to accrue his level of assets is broken somewhere.
Policy settings under which "having capital" allows you to grow your wealth while making terrible decisions are bad policy settings.
Various alternative policies exist, the most obvious of which is adjusting taxation settings such that growing your wealth requires consistently making good judgement calls.
I’m not trying to be obtuse, my best guess is that I’m in favor of what you’re proposing. Can you add more details though? I’m certainly in favor of progressive taxation, which kindof matches the spirit of what you’re saying by reducing the profit margin for those who have massive amounts to “play with”. Maybe there’s a more direct method though? Maybe a wealth tax? Something else?
I'm explicitly not claiming any particular proposal is right; my background is not in public policy.
I'm pointing out that across a great many economic nations, times, and economic systems, the core problem of every social system is not the obvious stuff like "how do we allocate resources" - it's "how do we remove bad decision-makers" - because those people are implementing "how we allocate resources".
There's a great many ways to solve this problem, but there's little evidence that _anything_ is currently being tried. I'd support any policy that seemed reasonably likely to improve this situation.
I'm pointing out that across a great many economic nations, times, and economic systems, the core problem of every social system is not the obvious stuff like "how do we allocate resources" - it's "how do we remove bad decision-makers" - because those people are implementing "how we allocate resources".
There's a great many ways to solve this problem, but there's little evidence that _anything_ is currently being tried. I'd support any policy that seemed reasonably likely to improve this situation.
Don’t make a mistake of anthropomorphising Larry Ellison.
> Does Larry really lack enough self awareness to not realize these kind of statements make him sound like an orwellian super villain
He's joining the attention economy. Saying something stupid but provocative yields earned social media. Larry Ellison saying something sensible wouldn't make HN's front page.
He's joining the attention economy. Saying something stupid but provocative yields earned social media. Larry Ellison saying something sensible wouldn't make HN's front page.
But it's so rare! Surely we would be driven to comment on it.
For one, he’s one of the OG’s who’s had vast wealth and power for longer than many others have been alive.
And two, he’s at an age where people lose any sense of self-awareness, shame, filters - all that shit.
Anyways I don’t think he cares that it makes him sound Orwellian. I suspect he’s fine with being Orwellian outright. Not having what he has is as unimaginable as for all of us having a fraction of what he has. It’s too much of a stretch for someone like that to extent so much to imagine.
And yeah it’s frightening, it’s why we did away with autocratic Sun King calibre aristocracy/royalty and all that. We can expect all the other zillionaires to follow this path reliably over the next few decades.
And two, he’s at an age where people lose any sense of self-awareness, shame, filters - all that shit.
Anyways I don’t think he cares that it makes him sound Orwellian. I suspect he’s fine with being Orwellian outright. Not having what he has is as unimaginable as for all of us having a fraction of what he has. It’s too much of a stretch for someone like that to extent so much to imagine.
And yeah it’s frightening, it’s why we did away with autocratic Sun King calibre aristocracy/royalty and all that. We can expect all the other zillionaires to follow this path reliably over the next few decades.
I doubt it’s the age of him, it moreso feels like the age of society.
With Musk swinging his arm to in the air to hail his führer it really feels like the defining moment of new age rich people, don’t get me wrong the build up was there but this is just the moment that best encapsulates it all.
The best person to personify the old age I’d say is Bill Gates, awful person behind the curtains I’m sure, real buddy buddy with Epstein but he did the whole “caring for humanity” shtick, he donated bits of his money, y’know he at least took some effort to make it seem like he cared.
With Musk swinging his arm to in the air to hail his führer it really feels like the defining moment of new age rich people, don’t get me wrong the build up was there but this is just the moment that best encapsulates it all.
The best person to personify the old age I’d say is Bill Gates, awful person behind the curtains I’m sure, real buddy buddy with Epstein but he did the whole “caring for humanity” shtick, he donated bits of his money, y’know he at least took some effort to make it seem like he cared.
> With Musk swinging his arm to in the air to hail his führer it really feels like the defining moment of new age rich people
We're five days into the Presidency. And Musk has stumbled across power the sorts he hasn't really had to wrangle with before. I'd be shocked if he comes out in 2028 better off, materially, than he is now.
We're five days into the Presidency. And Musk has stumbled across power the sorts he hasn't really had to wrangle with before. I'd be shocked if he comes out in 2028 better off, materially, than he is now.
It's probably not a good idea to piss off people with corporeal power.
Xi makes a lot less than Jack Ma, but I think that he showed him who's In Charge.
Xi makes a lot less than Jack Ma, but I think that he showed him who's In Charge.
> corporeal power
?
?
Meaning power over the body (armed thugs, for example). Bit of a play on words.
Ma has power over the money, but Xi has power over Ma's body.
Rich people often think that money is everything (and they are usually correct), but there are some things that money can only buy, when facing a bat with nails driven through it.
Ma has power over the money, but Xi has power over Ma's body.
Rich people often think that money is everything (and they are usually correct), but there are some things that money can only buy, when facing a bat with nails driven through it.
*Rich people in America
How much you “make” is a silly concept in many places in the world. “People with guns listening to you” is the real power.
How much you “make” is a silly concept in many places in the world. “People with guns listening to you” is the real power.
> How much you “make”
Anyone talking about how much they "make" isn't rich (in the respect we're discussing) in any society.
Anyone talking about how much they "make" isn't rich (in the respect we're discussing) in any society.
Presumably the PRC/CCP is a body in this metaphor.
Gates [...] real buddy buddy with Epstein
Were those ties more business and philanthropic oriented or socially oriented?
I found this while searching for details surrounding the ties between the two:
The billionaire has acknowledged that he "shouldn't have had dinners with him" while his ex-wife Melinda French Gates said the business and technology magnate's relationship with Epstein played a role in their divorce.
However, the claim that Gates visited Epstein's private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands 37 times has not been substantiated.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-bill-gates-visit-eps...
Were those ties more business and philanthropic oriented or socially oriented?
I found this while searching for details surrounding the ties between the two:
The billionaire has acknowledged that he "shouldn't have had dinners with him" while his ex-wife Melinda French Gates said the business and technology magnate's relationship with Epstein played a role in their divorce.
However, the claim that Gates visited Epstein's private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands 37 times has not been substantiated.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-bill-gates-visit-eps...
I don’t mean age as in age of empires, I mean age as in old guy with no social filter anymore age.
Most people around 60-70 usually become quite shameless and cringey in one way or another.
As for Gates, he was dragged through anti-trust at a time when there were no other tech billionaires to team up with. His tech did not give him global reach - he just made a lot of money on office cubicle software back then.
But generally, yes. Absolutely - guy throwing salute is a defining moment of zillionaire IDGAF. Anti-trust success or failure is going to become the defining turning point for millennial generation.
Most people around 60-70 usually become quite shameless and cringey in one way or another.
As for Gates, he was dragged through anti-trust at a time when there were no other tech billionaires to team up with. His tech did not give him global reach - he just made a lot of money on office cubicle software back then.
But generally, yes. Absolutely - guy throwing salute is a defining moment of zillionaire IDGAF. Anti-trust success or failure is going to become the defining turning point for millennial generation.
Larry is an 80 year old man worth 200 billion US dollars I don’t think he gives a shit what he sounds like.
Its the latter, Larry is not your friend
He is not stupid, and operates within the same broad cultural framework as we do. It's the latter.
Once CIA, always CIA. Larry is just explaining from first hand knowledge what the deep state wants.
The oligarchs have now realized that nothing is going to stop them, so the masks are coming off.
How long until corporations start organizing their own private militias, I wonder?
How long until corporations start organizing their own private militias, I wonder?
Check out the history of the Pinkerton Security agency.
Negative sixty eight years[1]. Oh, you didn't mean the private military contractors, of which there were about 250k involved in the iraq and afghanistan war, slightly more in total than deployed troops at any given time.
Many ultra-high-net-worth individuals hire them. It's no secret, they've been doing it since the 60s when kidnap and ransom insurance started being a serious thing, and it's only intensified over time. There was an interesting "bolt hole" real estate listing that claimed years supply of food, water, housing etc. for a "company sized group of security contractors" as an amenity.
[1] G4S, the largest PMC company, founded in 1957
Many ultra-high-net-worth individuals hire them. It's no secret, they've been doing it since the 60s when kidnap and ransom insurance started being a serious thing, and it's only intensified over time. There was an interesting "bolt hole" real estate listing that claimed years supply of food, water, housing etc. for a "company sized group of security contractors" as an amenity.
[1] G4S, the largest PMC company, founded in 1957
> they've been doing it since the 60s when kidnap and ransom insurance started being a serious thing
Private security has been a thing for millenia!
Private security has been a thing for millenia!
Perhaps they already do, we just don’t know about it yet =)
The biggest problem is every creator of ceasing privileges from others genuinely believes that he is excluded.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller[deleted]
The lawnmower wants to use vast AI surveillance on the blades of grass.
Do not anthropomorphize the lawnmower.
Do not anthropomorphize the lawnmower.
This is a reference to the infamous rant by Bryan M. Cantrill after Sun was acquired by Oracle: https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=1982
Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphising Larry Ellison.
> https://youtube.com/watch?t=1980&v=-zRN7XLCRhc
> https://youtube.com/watch?t=1980&v=-zRN7XLCRhc
If I didn't know better I would think this is an Onion article. Unfortunately, he's not the only powerful man who feels this way.
The obsession with control has been a preoccupation of the elite for a VERY long time. The idea that we're just a few cameras away from the perfect panopticon i a surprisingly dangerous and common delusion, especially given the ample evidence that it doesn't work. Look at the UK, where handguns are rare, knives are illegal to supply to under-18's, there are cameras EVERYWHERE... and they still have frequent stabbings.
With kitchen knives. And yeah they catch it on camera, but they didn't prevent it.
With kitchen knives. And yeah they catch it on camera, but they didn't prevent it.
Ars Technica article with a link to video records of the Oracle financial meeting: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/09/omnip...
CIA-Larry has been representing and pushing these ideas for a long time:
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/view/larry-ellisons-golden-ag...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Core
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/view/larry-ellisons-golden-ag...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Core
> "We're going to have supervision," Ellison said.
I literally read that as "supervillain" when I first read it.
I literally read that as "supervillain" when I first read it.
> "We're going to have supervision," Ellison said. "Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times, and if there's a problem, AI will report that problem and report it to the appropriate person."
I gotta say, I know that billionaires live in their own private world - in many sense of the word - but this is just wildly naive.
I gotta say, I know that billionaires live in their own private world - in many sense of the word - but this is just wildly naive.
I wish they would go and live in their own private world and leave the rest of us alone, instead of trying to inflict something that the Stasi-would-be-proud-of on the rest of us.
I don’t think so. The billionaires found a way to control the population. All they had to do was to become the government and have sufficient tech.
If Stazi and KGB had the tech we have today, we’d be still having DDR,Warsaw Pact, and Iron Curtain.
Ellison speaks the future. Quoting Mike Tyson „and whatcha gonna do 'bout it”. Ellison even has a database and a programming language he’d like to sell you to make that happen.
If Stazi and KGB had the tech we have today, we’d be still having DDR,Warsaw Pact, and Iron Curtain.
Ellison speaks the future. Quoting Mike Tyson „and whatcha gonna do 'bout it”. Ellison even has a database and a programming language he’d like to sell you to make that happen.
[deleted]
The funny part about this is that even with all this technology the USSR would still have fallen, because Russia is a poor country geographically.
Conformance enforcement only gets you more of the same behaviour. It denies access to variation that engenders innovation.
Exploration vs exploitation.
Conformance enforcement only gets you more of the same behaviour. It denies access to variation that engenders innovation.
Exploration vs exploitation.
> Russia is a poor country geographically
Leviathan vs Behemoth. Russia could be a strong land power, à la Rome. America is a maritime power, ruling via alliances and trade, à la Carthage. (Or Athens. Or the British or Dutch.)
Leviathan vs Behemoth. Russia could be a strong land power, à la Rome. America is a maritime power, ruling via alliances and trade, à la Carthage. (Or Athens. Or the British or Dutch.)
Optional membership in Club-Invisible-to-Surveillance, based on social credit, faction, status or other "predictive" criteria.
The modern super billionaire is so rich that only complete societal collapse or being personally targeted by a state-level entity can threaten their basically never-ending wealth and power. That's why they all have built bunkers on various islands in the world and have kissed the rings of whichever political leaders that look the most likely to threaten their position and/or life. If some of these leaders are also going to give them more money for their services, then that's just another good transaction for them. Anyone can sell their soul for a price. It takes a billionaire to sell it over and over for an ever increasing return.
> modern super billionaire is so rich that only complete societal collapse or being personally targeted by a state-level entity can threaten their basically never-ending wealth and power
Plenty of billionaires have gone to jail or gone bankrupt.
> Anyone can sell their soul for a price
But not for any price. Anyone who thinks they could build an Apple or Microsoft or even Oracle is probably not being honest about their own limitations.
Plenty of billionaires have gone to jail or gone bankrupt.
> Anyone can sell their soul for a price
But not for any price. Anyone who thinks they could build an Apple or Microsoft or even Oracle is probably not being honest about their own limitations.
That is not what “citizens” means or are supposed to be.
He does not understand or want citizenship, he wants peons.
He does not understand or want citizenship, he wants peons.
Unfortunately I am very pessimistic about the future of AI surveillance, its promises are way too compelling for the layperson understand its second order effect over time.
Europe is slowly but surely pushing for it as well.
Europe is slowly but surely pushing for it as well.
We're going to shift from merely recording everyone's movements in public, to identifying and analyzing each individual in real time and doing behavioral analysis. Laws need to stop that from happening. Maybe some states will be better than others.
"Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that's going on."
What about non-citizens.
What about non-citizens.
(2024)
Discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41562750
Discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41562750
Hilarious. This is from his wikipedia page:
“in 2019 a $1 billion lawsuit was filed against several Israel supporters, including Ellison. The lawsuit accused Ellison and others of conspiring to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Israeli-occupied territories, committing war crimes, and funding genocide.”
“in 2019 a $1 billion lawsuit was filed against several Israel supporters, including Ellison. The lawsuit accused Ellison and others of conspiring to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Israeli-occupied territories, committing war crimes, and funding genocide.”
Fine. But let’s also make sure that there is no indemnity for AI companies.
And that we pass laws to make it that systemic mis-identification should be classed as criminal negligence. Just to ensure everyone is on their best behaviour and not overstating the reliability of AI.
And that we pass laws to make it that systemic mis-identification should be classed as criminal negligence. Just to ensure everyone is on their best behaviour and not overstating the reliability of AI.
Not fine.
This applies to the great unwashed only, and not the rich, posh toffs like Larry.
Oh, it might also be for some of the rich, if they oppose the rulers.
Would Larry benefit from "vast AI-fueled surveillance system can ensure 'citizens will be on their best behavior'" Would his companies sell products or services needed .....
More importantly oracle will be able to count your cores better
if you actually look at the numbers, The billionaires are by far the most criminal types. Almost all of them are either convicts or have paid hush money for sexual assault or similar. No other demographics comes even close. Maybe presidents with about %12 being convicts.
Full surveillance should be installed to every single billionaire. AI can really help us to reduce criminality and keep billionaires in best behavior.
Full surveillance should be installed to every single billionaire. AI can really help us to reduce criminality and keep billionaires in best behavior.
s/citizen/subject/
Before clicking I was like “is this dude stupid?”
but I clicked on the article I see that Larry Ellison is a billionaire, of course he wants AI surveillance for his workers. I doubt he’ll let this AI he is thinking of surveill him though.
Awful idea, don’t think again.
but I clicked on the article I see that Larry Ellison is a billionaire, of course he wants AI surveillance for his workers. I doubt he’ll let this AI he is thinking of surveill him though.
Awful idea, don’t think again.
> I see that Larry Ellison is a billionaire
It's more instructive to think of Larry Ellison as the lawnmower in the billionaire salad.
It's more instructive to think of Larry Ellison as the lawnmower in the billionaire salad.
[deleted]
> "We're going to have supervision," Ellison said. "Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times, and if there's a problem,
Nothing will happen. They're supervised currently and many carry body cameras. The public is entitled to complain about their behavior and there is an internal affairs unit. If none of this is currently working then simply turning up you observations will likewise do nothing.
> Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that's going on.
That's not how human citizens work. It's hard to believe that someone so well connected can project such parochial and theocratic false ideas about the world.
> Ellison also expects AI drones to replace police cars in high-speed chases. "You just have a drone follow the car," Ellison said. "It's very simple in the age of autonomous drones."
Larry, the reason we chase people, is because they can get to a location and further victimize people. Knowing where they are is half the battle, the other half is going there and getting them into custody.
The demented mind of a spoiled child. This is what happens to you when you refuse to compete and instead lean into your state connections to earn your lifestyle. Disgusting, really.
Nothing will happen. They're supervised currently and many carry body cameras. The public is entitled to complain about their behavior and there is an internal affairs unit. If none of this is currently working then simply turning up you observations will likewise do nothing.
> Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that's going on.
That's not how human citizens work. It's hard to believe that someone so well connected can project such parochial and theocratic false ideas about the world.
> Ellison also expects AI drones to replace police cars in high-speed chases. "You just have a drone follow the car," Ellison said. "It's very simple in the age of autonomous drones."
Larry, the reason we chase people, is because they can get to a location and further victimize people. Knowing where they are is half the battle, the other half is going there and getting them into custody.
The demented mind of a spoiled child. This is what happens to you when you refuse to compete and instead lean into your state connections to earn your lifestyle. Disgusting, really.
Obviously technology will continue to affect society as it has today and always had. I don’t know why people here are freaking out. It’s how it always has and will be. But you’re missing the key phrase - “best behavior”. This is the political part that gets fought over.
Every important social reform in history has violated unjust laws. Do you want to live in a society where social reform is not possible?
Important to who? What specifically has been good about them and what was unjust about which specific laws? Sounds like victor writing history.
I want to live in a society where bad behavior isn’t incentivized.
I want to live in a society where bad behavior isn’t incentivized.
> Important to who? What specifically has been good about them and what was unjust about which specific laws? Sounds like victor writing history.
the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"[1]
I think you know what is unjust about slavery. Dictatorship. Apartheid. Disenfranchisement of women.
> I want to live in a society where bad behavior isn’t incentivized.
Oppression is bad behavior. Protest is not.
[1] https://x.com/dril/status/473265809079693312
the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"[1]
I think you know what is unjust about slavery. Dictatorship. Apartheid. Disenfranchisement of women.
> I want to live in a society where bad behavior isn’t incentivized.
Oppression is bad behavior. Protest is not.
[1] https://x.com/dril/status/473265809079693312
That's one of my favorite quotes.
Our society has become so both-sides-pilled that one side being right about an issue is no longer even theoretically possible. No matter how correct a conclusion might be, it would get dismissed as cable news echo-chambery. It would be called a derangement syndrome. It's like people believe there's a fixed law of the universe, a law of conservation of debate. All debates will always exist in equilibrium, no matter where the fulcrum meanders over time.
Our society has become so both-sides-pilled that one side being right about an issue is no longer even theoretically possible. No matter how correct a conclusion might be, it would get dismissed as cable news echo-chambery. It would be called a derangement syndrome. It's like people believe there's a fixed law of the universe, a law of conservation of debate. All debates will always exist in equilibrium, no matter where the fulcrum meanders over time.
[deleted]
Yeah that’s my point - bad behavior is what’s agreed upon to be bad. Hopefully AI can disincentivize the things you point out as bad. That’s the politics of it.
You could just as easily say that Elba was a private island.
How could he even say this with a straight face?
Because he foresees it, believes it and will profit from it?
[deleted]
And of course Oracle will provide the software.
At least he's open about his intentions.
well, it certainly sounds like we'll all be better off with him in charge of tiktok.
So, social credit system then?
Well he can f right off!
Ah yes, the torment nexus. https://x.com/AlexBlechman/status/1457842724128833538
Pathetic man wants to monetize your rights to privacy. Will use big words to make it sound ok.
Dude can move to China if this is the society he wants to live in.
He's being given 500 billion dollars to build it here :c
[deleted]
The technology is already here, and there would also be clear upsides, especially for private citizens trying to protect themselves, but the end result is that we end up in a surveillance state. Arguably, we may already be in one.