The inverse Goldblum AI critique: sure they SHOULD build AI, not that they COULD
lescarr · x · 2026-10-14
A mirrored take on the Goldblum AI critique (from Jurassic Park's "were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should"): the original says techbros were sure they COULD build AI and never asked if they SHOULD; the more relevant inverse says they were sure they SHOULD build AI and never stopped to ask if they actually COULD.
More from AGI Musings
- The Marginalian praises Carissa Véliz's 'Prophecy' on breaking free of predictive tech — CarissaVeliz · 2026-10-14
- Tufts and Santa Fe Institute paper models LLM adoption as a 'cognitive virus' — alex_verem · 2026-10-14
- 'LLMs as a Cognitive Virus': paper finds tipping point to population-wide AI dependence — alex_verem · 2026-10-14
- From a Utah datacentre fight to citizens' assemblies: how to actually democratise AI — nordicinst · 2026-10-14
- "In 2 years nobody will ask what you do for work": another aggressive AGI timeline take — rand_longevity · 2026-10-14
- Anthropic whistleblower warns AI could end humanity by 2030 — yasmikash · 2026-10-14