This is what I felt when I read Rob Pike’s post, for the most part, but expressed a hundred times better than I could have possibly imagined.

This gatekeeping is bizarre and weird. It's not OK to complain about the impacts of AI because you worked in the tech industry?

Especially since it starts by complaining about Rob Pike's rant and Rob starts by complaining about the copyright problems as well just as this article claims to dislike.

Poorly thought out and poorly written. By the way, there's no E in "angry".

This a bit of a hollow article and kind of misses the point of Rob Pike's rant. This is a guy who care deeply about computing. He spent the first 20 years of his career working at Bell labs, building things like utf-8 (an amazing idea that everying easier for anyone who doesn't speak english!) and plan 9. Pike does not like resource wasting (part of the reason they built Go was to replace Python at Google) so yes, his point makes sense in that context

There are two reasonable-sounding takedowns of any critique of an industry:

- You haven't worked in that industry so don't know what you're talking about, so be quiet.

- You worked in the industry that you are now critiquing and benefited from it, so be quiet.

I agree with the author that there is a sense of hypocritical outrage in Pike’s post.

My viewpoint is similar. Google has done many negative things, and at this point it can easily be argued they have caused net harm. By choosing to remain employed there, Pike tacitly admits he believes that they land on the net positive side.

There is at least as much nuance to AI as a technology, but his level of outrage indicates he is not evaluating it through the lens of trade-offs. His reaction then begs the question: why would he be nuanced in the case of his employer but not in the case of AI? And the answer seems obvious: he profits from Google directly, not AI.

If you reach that conclusion, his words ring pretty hollow.