Tech Won't Save Us
Author: Paris MarxSubscribed: 1,228Played: 41,693
Pronatalism and Silicon Valley’s Right-Wing Turn w/ Julia Black
How Cities Sell Themselves to the Tech Industry w/ David A. Banks
Elon Musk Is Destroying Twitter w/ Matt Binder
Does Banning TikTok Make Sense? w/ Shoshana Wodinsky & Daniel Greene
Chatbots Won’t Take Many Jobs w/ Aaron Benanav
ChatGPT Is Not Intelligent w/ Emily M. Bender
How Amazon Reshapes Small Business to Serve Itself w/ Moira Weigel
Celebrating Three Years of Tech Won’t Save Us!
Everyone Hates VCs After the SVB Collapse w/ Jacob Silverman
Robots Aren’t the Solution to Elder Care w/ James Wright
Why We Must Resist AI w/ Dan McQuillan
What New EU Rules Might Mean for Gig Workers w/ Ben Wray
The Consequences of Leaving Tech to the Private Sector w/ Rosie Collington
The Untold History of Silicon Valley w/ Malcolm Harris
The Tesla Crash is Only Beginning w/ Edward Niedermeyer
Will AR Glasses Die Like Google Glass? w/ Quinn Myers
Don’t Fall for the AI Hype w/ Timnit Gebru
@50:30: Another lazy commentator who fancies herself a journalist, yet spreads rumors (which were started to undermine unions' negotiating positions) that could be dispelled with a simple Google search. "The Apprentice" began in 2004. It's beginning had nothing to do with the 2007 labor strike. Good grief. Do your job.
@52:50: Paris thinks there's only a weak genetic component of intelligence, and that there's little evidence to the contrary? Good grief, he does like to speak confidently--with hedged hyperbole--about things he clearly knows little about. Ugh, it seems a "liberal education" increasingly entails training people to make smug, ignorant "critiques" and has little to do with learning anything... presumably because that would evince a colonially hegemonic othering of their lived ways of knowing, or some such BS.
@9:15: The guest thinks no one had ever heard of rationalism or effective altruism before 2022?! Talk about solipsism. Just because it's new to her doesn't mean it's new to the universe. She might even discover that if she were to, I don't know, look into things a bit--almost like a journalist would. And she thinks rationalism and effective altruism are "right-wing"? What is this crap? Is she equating effective altruism with the narrow issue of "earning to give"? If so, the criticism shouldn't be against the process that identifies that course as effective, but against the economic system that makes the observation true... or perhaps against its misuse in practice. In any case, she's bad at thinking or bad at communicating. Many podcast guests seem more interested in provocation than in accuracy. Maybe accuracy doesn't "drive engagement"--and yet again, a podcast criticizing tech replicates its vices.
@9:04: Anti-entropy? I assume that's more deontological than teleological. If it's a goal, good luck with that.
@3:22: Good effort. It's pronounced ay-oh-tay-ah-roh-ah, meaning Land of the Long White Cloud, the Maori name from before it was called New Zealand.
Paris, for the love of God, please learn an alternative to "puh-ticular".
Interesting and thought-provoking. Thanks.
The second guest was truly awful. He just blathered ignorant, nonsensical, naive "critiques" one tends to find in the social-pseudoscience backwaters of U.S. universities. He presented an army of strawmen that he attacked with malapropisms. Moreover, if you search for his positive position (which he seems to conceal), he's seemingly advocating an incredibly childish, willfully naive, victim-worshipping point of view. It's just a pile of garbage.
@39:59: It's unfortunate that this podcast often hosts guests who regurgitate misrepresentations seemingly to signal their liberal bona files. E.g., the IMF doesn't impose debt. It is the international lender of last resort. If countries manage their economies so poorly that they are insolvent and can't get loans from any other sources--often resulting in sky-rocketing inflation and civil unrest--they can CHOOSE to avail of loans at highly confessional rates based on terms set by the IMF's 190+ member countries. Enough with the ignorant victim-worshipping BS. Bother to KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
@40:03: For someone who seems to take such pride in critiquing the methods of studies with which he disagrees, this guest is rather glib about making unsupported accusations. E.g., what evidence is there for the broad accusation made at the time stamp?
@37:27: This was a flawed accusation. You stated that these people believe X and Y, which they explain by asserting that their belief in X leads them to believe in Y. You then simply asserted that their beliefs in Y lead them to believe in X. Where is the evidence for that accusation? In what way is their explanation insufficient to explain what we see?
Please think of another word for boost.
I wonder why lisping is so much more common in the UK than in other English-speaking countries.
@38:10: "... the identities they inhabit." ?! Good grief. Why is "their identities" not enough? There's a terrible irony in a linguist adding words in order to be less clear. I suspect that the signal is that she's super-sensitive to unstated (unknown, imaginary, hypothetical) nuances, or super-scared of clarity. Less clarity = more plausible deniability.
@35:30: Ugh. Perhaps the actual research is better than the guest is conveying here, but at a minimum, her version suggests she isn't as knowledgeable about methods as she thinks she is. In order to warrant emphasizing the racial component, she'd need to compare that same rate for other races. But then, maybe that would slow down the virtue-signalling.
Thanks for this interview. Wonderful guest. Some of her interpretations seemed unduly and prejudicially oriented toward the virtue-signalling jargon of social quasi- (or pseudo-) sciences, but the gist of her views was well founded and well stated. As in most interviews, Paris could've engaged more substantially rather than sounding as if he reflexively and exuberantly agrees with every utterance. As ever, he could also be more thoughtful about his diction, which is ironic in a conversation about language and artificial intelligence.
@18:26: It might not have been *merely* a coincidence, but it *was* a coincidence. By definition, a coincidence is when events coincide. It's right there in the word.
In one podcast, I reached my 10-year tolerance limit for the term "off ramp". Learn more words.
Tesla, not Tezla.
The podcast could be shortened 10% by removing the phrase "kind of".