Coming at this a few days late… But this was a classic Sarah and Beth conversation, and I’m here for it! Usually, I agree more with Beth, but on this one, I think I agree with Sarah more!
I’m still listening but just want to make sure…we’re all “rejecting all cookies,” right? I know this doesn’t matter to the meat of the convo but I was like—no Sarah! We’re not accepting the cookies! No cookies!
Loved this “return to form!” Thank you for conveying gobbledegook information in an understandable way well enough for me to follow your contrasting viewpoints, all without making me feel dumb. You ladies rock at that.
The extraction from working families that is driven by or supported by the current government is astounding.
I really appreciated the conversation about Sanders' proposal. It felt like Sarah and Beth Ann were talking about government mechanisms that traditionally would have been attributed to the other's party.
We can't control AI, we can't stop people from opting into using AI, so maybe a mix of the approaches used like public awareness and warning labels for smoking and the approach used for regulating electricity generation and delivery - make the public aware of the use of AI everywhere it is used AND make AI companies submit themselves to a local government agency to get anything they want to do approved in advance in individual districts/states, not the federal level. The industry is not going to change from here. AI is information gathering and entertainment.
Our society works under the "ask for forgiveness, not permission" standing. It has always been amazing to me that manufacturers can engineer new chemicals and start putting them into our air, water, food, clothing, homes without asking if we are ok with them. Only once we have suffered under them for decades and can collect enough evidence can we ask them nicely to dial it back. It feels like an abdication of our responsibility for our current selves and the future.
What a terrific episode. Despite the topic at hand having some very real world and potentially big existential implications, it felt good to listen to you both dig into the policy of it all and how different perspectives could be considered when coming at these problems with AI. Thank you.
In many of the oil rich countries, they do not pay taxes because the wealth from the oil revenue pays the government’s bills. I believe we pay people from Alaska (or have in the past) part of the revenue of the oil and gas generated there. AI does not exist without our data and knowledge. Everyone should share in the wealth it generates either by payouts or by taxing it higher and alleviating our taxes. We did not have any true option to opt out of contributing so there needs to be some reciprocation. Otherwise this is just a new form of colonization robbing the wealth of the poor to concentrate for the few. This wealth is not generated solely by the companies so we need to be sharing it with everyone.
My conservative dad has been so excited about this IPO. He just texted he bought 2 shares and is trying to get more. His viewpoint is that Elon wants this to be “for the people”. I want to send him this episode.
Outside of politics, I am pretty extreme anti-technology. However, when I broke my hand earlier this spring I had to learn how to voice type and it's made me (grudgingly)appreciate how technology can benefit people who have some sort of disability. In the same way, I hate being surveilled all the time by government. However, I recognize that using cameras to enforce traffic laws can benefit people of color from having personal interactions with law enforcement that could go wrong. I'm trying to see the nuance in things. Thanks y'all!
Y’all. I picked “learn” as my word of the year in January, which I remembered when I saw it written in the front of my planner. I Started a new job in March that’s more demanding (went from in-house counsel to a law firm) and holy heck am I learning. What a good reminder that learning is sometimes uncomfortable and awkward and HARD. I said I wanted a learning experience while I was interviewing, and I definitely got it.
Coming at this a few days late… But this was a classic Sarah and Beth conversation, and I’m here for it! Usually, I agree more with Beth, but on this one, I think I agree with Sarah more!
I’m still listening but just want to make sure…we’re all “rejecting all cookies,” right? I know this doesn’t matter to the meat of the convo but I was like—no Sarah! We’re not accepting the cookies! No cookies!
Loved this “return to form!” Thank you for conveying gobbledegook information in an understandable way well enough for me to follow your contrasting viewpoints, all without making me feel dumb. You ladies rock at that.
The extraction from working families that is driven by or supported by the current government is astounding.
I really appreciated the conversation about Sanders' proposal. It felt like Sarah and Beth Ann were talking about government mechanisms that traditionally would have been attributed to the other's party.
We can't control AI, we can't stop people from opting into using AI, so maybe a mix of the approaches used like public awareness and warning labels for smoking and the approach used for regulating electricity generation and delivery - make the public aware of the use of AI everywhere it is used AND make AI companies submit themselves to a local government agency to get anything they want to do approved in advance in individual districts/states, not the federal level. The industry is not going to change from here. AI is information gathering and entertainment.
Our society works under the "ask for forgiveness, not permission" standing. It has always been amazing to me that manufacturers can engineer new chemicals and start putting them into our air, water, food, clothing, homes without asking if we are ok with them. Only once we have suffered under them for decades and can collect enough evidence can we ask them nicely to dial it back. It feels like an abdication of our responsibility for our current selves and the future.
Sending this episode to many folks! Thank you for modeling (per usual) how to thoughtfully engage in policy conversations when there is disagreement.
Enjoyed this episode very much. Love a good, meaty policy debate, especially when I can’t pick a side.
What a terrific episode. Despite the topic at hand having some very real world and potentially big existential implications, it felt good to listen to you both dig into the policy of it all and how different perspectives could be considered when coming at these problems with AI. Thank you.
AGREE
In many of the oil rich countries, they do not pay taxes because the wealth from the oil revenue pays the government’s bills. I believe we pay people from Alaska (or have in the past) part of the revenue of the oil and gas generated there. AI does not exist without our data and knowledge. Everyone should share in the wealth it generates either by payouts or by taxing it higher and alleviating our taxes. We did not have any true option to opt out of contributing so there needs to be some reciprocation. Otherwise this is just a new form of colonization robbing the wealth of the poor to concentrate for the few. This wealth is not generated solely by the companies so we need to be sharing it with everyone.
This is really interesting. Thanks for sharing!
23 banks??? I already thought this I.P.O. was fishy but now….what are we even doing?
😬
My conservative dad has been so excited about this IPO. He just texted he bought 2 shares and is trying to get more. His viewpoint is that Elon wants this to be “for the people”. I want to send him this episode.
I do enjoy it when yall disagree!
Outside of politics, I am pretty extreme anti-technology. However, when I broke my hand earlier this spring I had to learn how to voice type and it's made me (grudgingly)appreciate how technology can benefit people who have some sort of disability. In the same way, I hate being surveilled all the time by government. However, I recognize that using cameras to enforce traffic laws can benefit people of color from having personal interactions with law enforcement that could go wrong. I'm trying to see the nuance in things. Thanks y'all!
I love it when y'all disagree 😂
Same! They do it so well and I learn so much about communication when it happens. 💕
Yes! Great discussion
SAME. I feel like I don’t have much to add to this debate, but I want you to know it was rousing!
Agree - and I usually end up favoring Beth’s logic but can appreciate Sarah’s as well.
I'm typically the same, but found myself siding with Sarah on this one!
Me too!
Y’all. I picked “learn” as my word of the year in January, which I remembered when I saw it written in the front of my planner. I Started a new job in March that’s more demanding (went from in-house counsel to a law firm) and holy heck am I learning. What a good reminder that learning is sometimes uncomfortable and awkward and HARD. I said I wanted a learning experience while I was interviewing, and I definitely got it.
Just starting this episode but I wanted to share this link to NPR’s The Indicator about Space Z’s IPO and the rules of it all.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-indicator-from-planet-money/id1320118593?i=1000772102872
In light of today’s episode, i got nervous about my retirement funds. I found this helpful. Tl/dr: S&P is being more cautious with its index funds.
https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/corp/articles/staying-grounded-moonshot-ipos.html