Then stop dismissing other people’s “argumentets”. Unfortunately, most AI proponents don’t realize that the AI use case that is being pushed by it’s makers and owners is not “a tool to assist users”, but “a tool for executives to replace humans”. Is it a dumb proposal? absolutely. It doesn’t reduce the moral responsibility of those promoting AI. They are supporting the destruction of people’s livelihoods to make the wealthiest human being in history slightly wealthier, and curse knowledge workers to poverty just like factory workers were in their time by the exact same political and economic class of soulless pricks.
If the argument want as you have laid it out, I would not dismiss it. But I cannot do that when the arguemnt is ”hammers in general are bad because I cannot use them to drive to work” or ”also your essay fucking sucks. learn to put together a coherent thought instead of relying on a glorified autocorrect that doesn’t have them at all to do it for you”. That second one is an actual quote.
What you bring up is how a few people is power are using AI to increase their wealth without regards for human suffering. I agree that what they are doing is wrong. And the discussion should be about how AI affects our society, how it is used and who controls it. This does not make AI a bad tool, it makes it a tool that can used in a bad way to cause a lot of harm.
“If the argument want as you have laid it out, I would not dismiss it.”
Your autocorrect software is failing you.
What is your argument? It is OK for a few people to hurt others, since you personally are benefiting, in a very small way, from the cruelty? That’s a shit argument to make.
If AI is “just a tool”, then how come it doesn’t do any of the things it is promised to do? The issue is not expecting “a hammer to drive to work”. The problem is that LLMs makers promised a car, you order one, and receive a screwdriver on the mail. Because “screwdrivers are just a tool, you can use it to assemble a car”. It’s a scam, it is fraud, it is lying and stealing from others to capitalize on bad tech.
If AI is just a tool, its an unethical and immoral tool.
I’m trying to say that one should call a fraud a fraud, not a bad screwdriver.
You want to have a discussion about the fraud? Don’t say that screwdriver suck, say that it did not do what is was advertised to do.
It is OK for a few people to hurt others, since you personally are benefiting, in a very small way, from the cruelty?
I wonder why anyone would want an “AI girlfriend” or whatever ridiculous thing tech bros are trying to shoehorn monetization into to capitalize on the pervasive disconnect in society today.
And then, when I read a post like yours, referring to someone like that, it all suddenly makes sense. Given the choice, I’d also rather spend time with unthinking silicon than an asshole who talks to people like you do.
Why argue with someone who isn’t intelligent enough to write their essays without mechanical assistance?
I want a more diverse discussion about LLM and AI, not the default ”AI bad” response that is so common here. :(
Then stop dismissing other people’s “argumentets”. Unfortunately, most AI proponents don’t realize that the AI use case that is being pushed by it’s makers and owners is not “a tool to assist users”, but “a tool for executives to replace humans”. Is it a dumb proposal? absolutely. It doesn’t reduce the moral responsibility of those promoting AI. They are supporting the destruction of people’s livelihoods to make the wealthiest human being in history slightly wealthier, and curse knowledge workers to poverty just like factory workers were in their time by the exact same political and economic class of soulless pricks.
If the argument want as you have laid it out, I would not dismiss it. But I cannot do that when the arguemnt is ”hammers in general are bad because I cannot use them to drive to work” or ”also your essay fucking sucks. learn to put together a coherent thought instead of relying on a glorified autocorrect that doesn’t have them at all to do it for you”. That second one is an actual quote.
What you bring up is how a few people is power are using AI to increase their wealth without regards for human suffering. I agree that what they are doing is wrong. And the discussion should be about how AI affects our society, how it is used and who controls it. This does not make AI a bad tool, it makes it a tool that can used in a bad way to cause a lot of harm.
Your autocorrect software is failing you.
What is your argument? It is OK for a few people to hurt others, since you personally are benefiting, in a very small way, from the cruelty? That’s a shit argument to make.
If AI is “just a tool”, then how come it doesn’t do any of the things it is promised to do? The issue is not expecting “a hammer to drive to work”. The problem is that LLMs makers promised a car, you order one, and receive a screwdriver on the mail. Because “screwdrivers are just a tool, you can use it to assemble a car”. It’s a scam, it is fraud, it is lying and stealing from others to capitalize on bad tech.
If AI is just a tool, its an unethical and immoral tool.
I’m trying to say that one should call a fraud a fraud, not a bad screwdriver.
You want to have a discussion about the fraud? Don’t say that screwdriver suck, say that it did not do what is was advertised to do.
That is not what I tried to say.
I wonder why anyone would want an “AI girlfriend” or whatever ridiculous thing tech bros are trying to shoehorn monetization into to capitalize on the pervasive disconnect in society today.
And then, when I read a post like yours, referring to someone like that, it all suddenly makes sense. Given the choice, I’d also rather spend time with unthinking silicon than an asshole who talks to people like you do.
Weak argument, dude
Did you use your computers spell check, ever? Cuz you’d fall for your own smart-assery if you did
“Why argue with someone who needs something else to write the essay for them” might be better