Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | smarm52's commentslogin

Source: https://fortune.com/2026/03/26/ai-agents-accountability-acce...

Wow, the article really is a straight copy and paste, right down to the image of Modern Times.

Also, the report reads like an ad aimed at "leadership" types:

> This shift raises a new leadership mandate: redeploy expanded capacity into measurable value and sustained growth

source: https://www.accenture.com/content/dam/accenture/final/accent...

From a company that specializes in ... "Accenture provides information technology and management consulting services..." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accenture)

So, they're in the business of telling managers how important they are, so that they can buy Accentures consulting services to make themselves look good.


> The immense success of “free” and open source software (FOSS)—which generates more than $500 billion in annual value in the U.S. alone3 and an estimated $8.8 trillion in total global value

Exploiting other people's work is big business.

I wonder if there's any incentive to regulate this shared "commons"?

> This is the tragedy of the commons in its purest form: billions in corporate value extracted, while the person providing the value is left to burn out.

Nope, guess not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

So, a good chunk of the global economy is based on exploiting the commons?

This seems like a perfect system, with no obvious faults.


Or perhaps they want to fit in with their social group? Or perhaps they like the attention? Or perhaps there are financial incentives to propagating fashionable ideas? Or ...

Not a single one of those explain the endorsement in OP of the completely-new "highly bizarre raccoon army conspiracy theory"

I wonder how NATO feels about the US wasting its weapons on this silliness? The US is still (for the time being) the backbone of NATO's military assets. What happens if the US spends these assets and doesn't save enough for China and Russia? This will likely embolden them, the longer the Iran war goes on.

Also shown in ...

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.


> The simplest definition I’ve come up with is that it’s when you see the whole world as a series of databases that can be controlled with the structured language of software code.

This is sophomoric. This person is the "editor in chief" and I'm guessing that no one had the job security to tell them that this article was silly on the face of it.

The title is good rage bait: "People Do Not Yearn for Automation". Obviously false, and it draws in the readers that want to say "Nuh uh!".

But the meat of the article is on how the seeming disconnect between technological elites and other people has lead to them touting AI when they should consider other alternatives.

This premise is shown to be dubious by a statistics in the article:

> In fact, the polling on this is so strong, I think it’s fair to say that a lot of people hate AI ...

> That’s with nearly two thirds of respondents saying they used ChatGPT or Copilot in the last month.

So, a simple question, why are so many people using something they claim to hate? Doesn't that spark a bit of interest in the author? No? They would very much like to blame industry leaders, rather than take a more nuanced view.

That said industry leaders suck. They seem to entertain magical thinking that AI will somehow replace labour. And they seem to deploy it with that end in mind. That's a stupid thing to do, but they have the money so they make the rules.

But this idea that they have "software brain" is just laughable.

> You can’t advertise people out of reacting to their own experiences.

I beg to differ.

"Stelter: Trump encourages people not to believe their eyes, ears or lungs." https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/media/donald-trump-disbelief-...




> The world permanently funding cash handouts in highly corrupt countries sounds like a terrible idea.

It's how much of international politics works. Paying off governments is a good way to get what you want.

McGillivray, F., & Smith, A. (2008). Punishing the prince: a theory of interstate relations, political institutions, and leader change. Princeton University Press.


> while wrongly targeting about half of those above it.

This is a feature, not a bug. Making payments to those that don't need in exchange for support for those in power is a function of many governments.

De Mesquita, B. B., & Smith, A. (2011). The dictator's handbook: why bad behavior is almost always good politics. Hachette UK.


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: