Is Musk still net-positive for humanity?
post by mikbp · 2025-01-10T09:34:42.630Z · LW · GW · 2 commentsThis is a question post.
Contents
Answers 2 tailcalled 1 artemium 1 Rosencrantz None 2 comments
Musk's behaviour has always been controversial and he's always been kind of a dick, but I don't think it is controversial at all to say that until some years ago he has been extremely net positive for society and humanity in general. However, he's behaviour and actions turned much more disruptive in the recent years while, at the same time, the reach of his actions and opinions have also maximized.
So, do you think Musk is still net-positive for humanity or he already turned to be net-negative in your view? I'd be interested to read your arguments below (also if you think that he's never been net-positive, for example).
I crossposted this question in the EA Forum [EA · GW]. I think having a flavour on how these communities feel about Musk is important because EA and the rationalist community have had kind of a "close" relationship with Musk -partly having helped shape his ideas and with adjacent organizations having received donations from him.
Answers
It's impossible to know until he is done/defeated, because the things he experiences due to his actions now could cause huge swings in his impacts on the future.
The answer surely depends mostly on what his impact will be on AI developments, both through his influence on the policy of the new administration and what he does with xAI. While I understand that his political actions might be mind-killing (to say the least) to many of his former fans, I would much prefer a scenario where Elon has infuriating politics but a positive impact on solving alignment over one with the opposite outcome.
Musk is net negative. His technology is cool but it would be perfectly fine without him. He has lost his mind in the style of Kanye West and spends his time ceaselessly weighing in on subjects such as British politics without first doing any research. He is a chaos agent whose modus operandi is short sharp aggressive interventions. Fine for a startup CEO where the damage is contained. Immensely worrying now he is a de facto world leader.
2 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by exmateriae (Sefirosu) · 2025-01-10T11:38:38.466Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
while, at the same time, the reach of his actions and opinions have also maximized
I disagree. Companies will become complacent and stagnant very fast if leadership is not going hard against it. I'm not sure I'd like to work for him but my impression is that he really pushes his teams to go for more faster and results have shown up. I'm not sure "dumb"(at first look) ideas like Mechazilla would exist without him being willing to try cool things.
I'm on the fence for X, there have been good changes and the site feels a bit less like an echo chamber but there have also been negatives and I'm concerned by his recent implications in politics because I don't think he can bring much value, especially compared to his companies.
Neuralink could also be very important.
Overall, he would benefit from talking less but you can't have everything. I still think very much net positive.
comment by Hzn · 2025-01-10T10:49:58.316Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Net negative & net positive are hard to say.
Some one seemingly good might be a net negative by displacing some one better.
And some one seemingly bad might be a net positive by displacing some one worse.
And things like this are not particularly farfetched.