Just the fact that Musk is in the conversation, and he's one of the most hated people on the planet, should give anyone pause as to whether we want these folk in charge of our future to any degree at all.
I'm pretty sure the odds arn't 1/3, AI saves us. The thing that ties these three people together is money. Money is what will turn them to assholes, more than anything else.
Now AI is likely just as, if not worse, than having a bunch of lackeys telling your farts, shits and piss liven up whatever room you're shitting in.
Somehow I’m more afraid of it being in the hands of Altman, with his ‘I’m creating a better world for everyone’ god complex, than Musk who is just a run-of-the-mill sociopathic nerd.
There is no one is more dangerous than one who believes he is doing the right thing.
> I live under a rock. Why is musk hated so much in here?
Let's say for a moment that you "live under a rock" enough that you actually haven't got a clue why Musk is such a hated figure (not only just here, but across a huge portion of humanity)...
You should count yourself lucky that you haven't been absolutely assaulted by the monstrosity known as "modern media". You're one of the fortunate few. Enjoy your life. It's better than many.
But lying (e.g. “full self driving next year”) and cheating (too early inclusion of spacex into various indexes) and whatever dogde was, should explain most of it.
Connections with other disliked characters doesn’t help either.
He promotes right-authoritarian politics (including a Nazi salute he later denied but watch the video), promotes “race science” and xenophobia, lies and exaggerates a lot, openly attempted to bribe voters in an election, and a lot of nasty personal stuff has come out.
He’s lost his mind IMO, from drugs and extreme social media addiction. As for the right-authoritarian “fash” stuff I’m not sure if it’s always been there or if it’s an opportunistic infection.
I still give him credit for helping push the EV revolution forward and for finally building reusable rocket boosters. The latter has been talked about and studied for decades before and is clearly the best way to make a reusable launch system but NASA and its “old space” contractors never executed on it. Probably because overly complicated approaches like the shuttle and disposable rockets were more short term profitable.
But note that all that stuff happened for the most part before the mid-teens, or at least that was when Musk made his contribution to it. I don’t think his mind is what it was.
If he’d died in 2015 he would be the GOAT. Die a hero or live long enough to become a villain.
I don’t think a ranking is particularly helpful anyway: All of them are absolutely unfit to wield that much power. I’m not even sure if AI should be progressed by private corporations in the first place; combining shareholder interest and revenue goals with the biggest social experiment in history and unprecedented research into artificial intelligence is an all around bad idea.
How could that lead to anything but misaligned incentives? This technology will never serve humanity when it is developed to inadvertently serve the monetary interest of a few.
Someone with the resources to do things is far more dangerous than someone without.
If you local librarian thinks
He is doing the right thing he’s not going to cause massive war or destroy the economy and wipe out 2/3rd of crops.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. People like musk, altman, trump have unprecedented power in history - far more than the kings of medieval times.
Thank you, but we're discussing who's the worse to decide the fate of humanity between Amodei, Musk and Altman, not if one should be afraid of their local librarian. All three currently hold a lot of power in their hands.
Though I know I attracted all the downvotes for not agreeing with most Americans that Musk is the worst person since Adolf.
xAI v. Ellison [1], where xAI argue that the right to denudify people is a First Amendment right, and therefore fine, regardless of the person it is depicting.
> HF 1606’s principal sponsor stated that this was an “intentional” drafting decision, explaining there is no way to distinguish between images that are nudified with and without consent.22 But any interest that Minnesota has in preventing nonconsensual “nudification” cannot sustain a prohibition on consensual“ nudification
Doe v. xAI [0], where it seems Grok was intentionally trained on CSAM, as part of the "denudification" tooling.
Currently... It very much seems that Musk believes that if a kid says 'yes', then that is consent. Despite them being a kid.
But, from a guy who tried fairly hard to get to Epstein's island, that's not exactly surprising. [2]
I think there are plenty of people that like Elon Musk. They just know to keep their mouth shut in front of the people that act like he’s the Antichrist.
There are plenty who like him. There are plenty who wave confederate flags. There are plenty who support the mass corruption of the current administration.
“Technically correct" means a statement or action follows strict rules or exact facts precisely, even if it ignores the wider meaning or real-world intention.
I think op was also actually-correct. (For better or worse, that is the objective reality; Musk still has lot of fans)
I feel like im losing my mind a bit reading these responses, someone can at once be very hated and very loved, this is not a new thing, one does not invalidate the other.
Of course he has a lot of fans, he has a lot of hate too. That makes him a divisive figure by definition (I’d least hope we can agree on that).
I mean I guess we can disagree but it seems like common sense to me to want someone more neutral to be in charge of super mega important tech.
Maybe I’m the weird one nowadays as I tend to try and vote centrists for the same reason.
> ... someone can at once be very hated and very loved ...
And (like Musk) can even be both (or more) all at once to a given specific individual (loved for the good he's done, and hated for the bad) and even pitied at the same time (for how far he's fallen), and feared (for the damage he can still do).
Mao and Che have legions more fans than Elon Musk, while his contributions are net positive (even with all the deadline misses and terrible decisions on various things) and theirs are strongly negative.
Those are not incompatible. He can still be one of the most hated people on the planet, even if lots of people like him. The same would apply to all of the most hated people in history.
No, they don't keep their mouth shut, they just don't have any relevant arguments. Many people are liked by plenty people and also not hated for doing Hitler salutes and the like. That's the part that matters, not that "somebody likes them", which is true for everyone. Charles Manson had women lining up to marry him, so?
I think it has everything to do with the subject at hand.
Elon, Dario and Altman are all terrible human beings, along with 99.99% of the rest of the ruling class. We don't need any of them, and we definitely shouldn't trust a single syllable that comes out their mouth.
Money equals power. If you have the wealth you have the control. Any politicians are owned by you as you simply threaten to buy their opponent. The public can be brainwashed by a trillion dollar advertising industry. You own the platforms everyone communicates on. You have inprecented resources to bend the world to your will and your only competiton is other people equally wealthy.
Probably the most annoying possible response. Your language seeks to make Elon, Altman and Dario's power levels equivalent to any run of the mill entrepreneur's and not, I dont know, the worlds most valuable and powerful companies of all time.
Why do you defend these people in your spare time on the internet, you'll never be rewarded for this. :sheep:
Not saying you need to like Musk or his politics. But if he really is "one of the most hated people on the planet" it doesn't really say good things about the planet.
He made electric cars viable. That is probably the single biggest thing helping us mitigate climate change. It would have come eventually, for sure. But he accelerated it.
He also accelerated the space age. Maybe it doesn't impress everyone. But I think what SpaceX has done is amazing.
Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning made electric cars viable. Then 5 years later Musk became CEO of the company and started claiming he was a cofounder.
Dude. Electric cars have existed since the 1800s. Musk was the one that actually made them a practical thing. And most of the rest of the world is well on their way to electrifying their transportation.
This is the closest to my feelings about this entire situation I've ever seen written, covering a lot of the different facets of how stupid and painful it is (though it's been a good week for that kind of post.)
Since I have incredible respect for Armin and his work, this is very nice to see, and I hope it wakes some other folk up.
I applied to get access to new models, and got in already. Hard to say if the models are much better, but the app seems relatively slick.
I was surprised to see quite a bit of my existing work already shown in the app, but I've been using MiMocode for a lot of my recent work, so my guess is they read the same config sources.
Well, I got access, and I'm able to use the new models for free through the app. The x-pro model did some decent coding, but seems a bit slow right now. I also had the x-flash and x-pro models make pelicans, and the x-flash seemed clearly better.
Seems cool, and makes sense, but does seem like it's mostly going to be annoying.
It's available at a limited number of airports, and you have to apply 1-3 days in advance each time. Also could be annoying to travellers who have to compete with you for line, seat, or bathroom space.
But maybe more revenue from visitors means better staffing and resources for airports!
I really like the idea, and I would like to see Tailscale evolve Aperture in this direction. Tailscale is already an easy way for anyone to connect their devices, which is essential for any sort of "personal cloud", and Aperture, while initially something of an AI gateway, is also facilitating connections to other services and apps.
If you're building a personal cloud, you also want your AI connected to it, but probably with some degree of management. Aperture already provides a fair amount in this area, and probably with a connector for Cloud in a Bottle, could give your AI safe access.
This is bad advice in 2026 for most people who would read it, since it advises taking a terrible security posture (give the agent access to everything,) in exchange for a relatively small improvement in workflows.
I say small improvement because my experience is that modern Agents are pretty good, so by the time they've handed it back to me to test it, there are usually only one or two remaining issues that I'll discover as we roll it out to Production.
(In general, I think we don't do enough to emphasize best practices in the era of AI, but...)
What Kent completely ignores here, as far a I can tell, is that there is significant value in finding out sooner what the needed features are. Building speculative structure can be a forcing function to establish requirements, because at least you start exposing failure modes. It might be more expensive than waiting, so hopefully you don't do it for most of your requirements, but sometimes it's your best option.
Building the wrong thing is now a much less expensive option, and that means the calculation around YAGNI is different. But it's still a calculation, and for now, each team needs to figure out how it has changed for them.
> What Kent completely ignores here, as far a I can tell, is that there is significant value in finding out sooner what the needed features are.
But you're already know them, they come from your requirements and the design of the system that will fulfill those requirements. YAGNI is about creating something that is not part of the current requirements because you expect those requirements to change later. It's not about fleshing your current requirements and constraints (which mostly come with conversations with your stakeholders users/customer, your resources, and the engineering constraints and talents).
Creating prototypes only have value if you use them in your conversation with your stakeholders, building a project management model, or doing research for engineering purposes. Anything else is putting the cart before the horse.
reply