top | item 42825595

(no title)

yakaccount4 | 1 year ago

Does Larry really lack enough self awareness to not realize these kind of statements make him sound like an orwellian super villain, or perhaps he does and simply does not care?

The latter is surely more frightening.

discuss

order

tw04|1 year ago

Larry doesn't care about anything other than Larry. For Larry, the biggest issue facing him beyond how he can live forever, is how he can ensure nobody ever commits a crime against him. The best way to ensure nobody ever commits a crime against him is to monitor every living human on the planet.

Any crime he commits can be figured out in courts with his high-priced lawyers so the idea that AI constantly watching you would be repressive seems misplaced to Larry.

For people that think I'm joking, at one point his primary philanthropic contributions were almost exclusively to life-extending efforts:

>Take the massive amount of money he once gave to life-extension research, which was the core focus of his philanthropic efforts.

>And so over the course of 15 years at the beginning of the 21st century he would donate over half of a billion dollars for anti-aging medical research, at a time when the field was seen as fringe science.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/8/24/21369773/larry-ellison-...

colordrops|1 year ago

The point isn't about preventing people from commiting crimes against him. It is surely that oracle database would back the data centers run by the surveillance state.

NewJazz|1 year ago

Hmm, but has Larry considered that a scurry of squirrels may commit organized crime against his empire? Maybe he should invest in some deterrence there.

Frost1x|1 year ago

The trend has been more openness in this sort of behavior. After all, the public hasn’t seemed to respond to it with much negativity other than people occasionally complaining about these sorts of behaviors online. The highest level complaint seems to be public protest, which don’t seem to garner enough momentum to push change.

If there’s no repercussions, why not be transparent? Scary indeed, as it’s quite telling of the direction we’re headed in, IMHO.

beloch|1 year ago

If you're a billionaire today, you might be forgiven for thinking the current state of extreme wealth inequality is completely normal. You will obviously want to lock in a system that has benefited you and ensure that nothing ever changes.

Historically speaking though, wealth inequality in developed nations is reaching a point at which, as often as not, revolutions happen. Sometimes they're bloody. Sometimes not. There are two approaches to avoid a revolution:

1. Back off from controlling government and let reform happen gradually. Your wealth will be lessened, but you'll probably remain one of the richest people alive.

2. Lock everything in with a totalitarian panopticon state that you control. AI surveillance offers a huge advantage over surveillance networks used by past totalitarian regimes. e.g. East Germany's Stasi showed the limitations of surveillance in an age where humans had to do it themselves. With AI to do it, you can avoid employing a large portion of the population to watch the rest, and you can keep the power of that surveillance network concentrated in just a few hands, preferably yours.

It's clear which approach is being attempted in the U.S.. I'd just point out that #2 is inherently high-risk. If you lock in wealth inequality at today's levels (or make them worse) and then use repressive means to prevent any form of push-back, the state becomes brittle. If it breaks, the result could be a bloodbath. Approach #1 is much safer. Yet, here we are.

ThrowawayR2|1 year ago

> "...trend has been toward more openness...

No offense but you're just injecting a trendy opinion without knowing anything about the man's history. Ellison was notorious even in the '90s-'00s and never made any real effort to hide it. The book "The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison: God Doesn't Think He's Larry Ellison" (yes, that's its actual title) came out all the way back in 2003, the title being a quip that had already been circulating for many years by that time.

pinkmuffinere|1 year ago

Honestly I think I prefer openness, although I'll admit it's hard to be precise about what's ok and what isn't. In the spirit of free speech, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." At the same time, defending somebody's right to speech does _not_ mean that individuals can't embargo / "cancel" that person -- I think this behavior is itself speech of a sort.

What would you change about the present situation? I feel that public protest is roughly all that can be allowed in response to speech (ie, speech in response to speech). Surely he shouldn't be jailed/fined/doxxed for this speech? What more should be allowed? Or is it just that the public protest isn't as strong as you'd want?

ozim|1 year ago

Don’t make a mistake of anthropomorphising Larry Ellison.

blipvert|1 year ago

He hates that.

JumpCrisscross|1 year ago

> Does Larry really lack enough self awareness to not realize these kind of statements make him sound like an orwellian super villain

He's joining the attention economy. Saying something stupid but provocative yields earned social media. Larry Ellison saying something sensible wouldn't make HN's front page.

bryanrasmussen|1 year ago

But it's so rare! Surely we would be driven to comment on it.

scyzoryk_xyz|1 year ago

For one, he’s one of the OG’s who’s had vast wealth and power for longer than many others have been alive.

And two, he’s at an age where people lose any sense of self-awareness, shame, filters - all that shit.

Anyways I don’t think he cares that it makes him sound Orwellian. I suspect he’s fine with being Orwellian outright. Not having what he has is as unimaginable as for all of us having a fraction of what he has. It’s too much of a stretch for someone like that to extent so much to imagine.

And yeah it’s frightening, it’s why we did away with autocratic Sun King calibre aristocracy/royalty and all that. We can expect all the other zillionaires to follow this path reliably over the next few decades.

yapyap|1 year ago

I doubt it’s the age of him, it moreso feels like the age of society.

With Musk swinging his arm to in the air to hail his führer it really feels like the defining moment of new age rich people, don’t get me wrong the build up was there but this is just the moment that best encapsulates it all.

The best person to personify the old age I’d say is Bill Gates, awful person behind the curtains I’m sure, real buddy buddy with Epstein but he did the whole “caring for humanity” shtick, he donated bits of his money, y’know he at least took some effort to make it seem like he cared.

trillic|1 year ago

Larry is an 80 year old man worth 200 billion US dollars I don’t think he gives a shit what he sounds like.

wesselbindt|1 year ago

He is not stupid, and operates within the same broad cultural framework as we do. It's the latter.

timewizard|1 year ago

Once CIA, always CIA. Larry is just explaining from first hand knowledge what the deep state wants.

archagon|1 year ago

The oligarchs have now realized that nothing is going to stop them, so the masks are coming off.

How long until corporations start organizing their own private militias, I wonder?

ChrisMarshallNY|1 year ago

Check out the history of the Pinkerton Security agency.

jaggederest|1 year ago

Negative sixty eight years[1]. Oh, you didn't mean the private military contractors, of which there were about 250k involved in the iraq and afghanistan war, slightly more in total than deployed troops at any given time.

Many ultra-high-net-worth individuals hire them. It's no secret, they've been doing it since the 60s when kidnap and ransom insurance started being a serious thing, and it's only intensified over time. There was an interesting "bolt hole" real estate listing that claimed years supply of food, water, housing etc. for a "company sized group of security contractors" as an amenity.

[1] G4S, the largest PMC company, founded in 1957

scyzoryk_xyz|1 year ago

Perhaps they already do, we just don’t know about it yet =)

kdmtctl|1 year ago

The biggest problem is every creator of ceasing privileges from others genuinely believes that he is excluded.

  First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
  Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
  Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
  Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
  —Martin Niemöller