I went to a talk Woz gave at my local university some years back. Genuinely a down to earth realistic talk about how he got to where he was. He didn’t shoot for stardom, he was just really good at what he did and was passionate about it, not the money.
Even though he didn’t outwardly say he got exploited by Steve Job’s. His recount of their relationship and Steve’s involvement in his work you could connect the dots yourself.
Anyhow I would trust Woz’s opinions to come from a place of experienced wisdom and not greed.
Because Woz is an actual good dude who likes technology but doesn’t hate people.
I feel like we’ve reached a new low when the news cycle is focusing so heavily on commencement speakers.
There’s plenty of room for those articles too, including here (if/when technology related).
They’re desperately trying to avoid talking about how Trump is raiding the treasury to pay off the criminals who helped him commit treason.
Or helping Israel commit genocide, or testing going to war with Cuba, or how he raped kids and is protecting all the child rapists, or destroying the country, or …
You know what, I can see why they might be more interested in commencement speakers.
Wozniak has come off to me as a consistently intelligent and stand-up guy throughout the years. It’s definitely worth taking his advice. The whole market and AI techbro industry is stuck in a follow-the-leader circlejerk so this is a refreshing take. I think it will be especially valuable when the AI hype train runs out of steam and the bubble pops.
I wonder how the proles could lead a worker lead parallel economy outside of AI.
There’s surely enough talent and will among them to let the AI economy rot itself, but how do you jump start that kinda movement effectively?
lead a worker-led parallel economy
Yes! Thank you for this!
Not a billionaire.
Not a billionaire specifically because he gave a lot of his Apple shares to hourly workers after the IPO because (future billionaire) Steve Jobs decided their contributions didn’t merit shares.
Usually, if you have artificial something, then the original thing doesn’t get renamed to actual something.
You know, like when they created artificial turf, turf was still turf. Artificial insemenation doesn’t change the normal method’s name to actual insemenation.
I think it was just cleverly subverting audience expectation for what he was about to say next, not an attempt to actually change language.
Renaming a thing because of a new thing has been a part of the evolution of language forever.
With specific regard to “artificial” and your example…Just yesterday I saw the title of an article about Football FIelds: Grass vs Turf. So apparently the artificial kind is now just “turf.” Luckily we already had “grass” as a synonym for actual turf. Although in some contexts we need to specify “actual grass” as opposed to cannabis.
Usually when an artificial item comes along, the original item is then described as “real.” Real flowers, real vanilla, real diamond (a misnomer but still) real breasts, real Christmas tree…
But of course in this case they’re looking for the initials to be A.I.
The change is due to proponents of current ai use having intelligence, but not actual intelligence. Small, but subtle difference.
