81–90 of 331 posts
[flagged]
> "immoral technofascist life" Many people would rather argue about morality and conscience (of our time, of our society) instead of confronting facts and reality. What we see here is a textbook case of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all. I’m saying AI doesn’t exist to scam elderly , which is saying nothing about whether it’s dangerous in that respect.
Perhaps you’ve heard that the purpose of a system is what it does?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean the guy that has in his bio "YC and VC backed founder" and has made multiple posts in the last couple months dismissing different negative thoughts about AI? Yeah that guy probably doesn't have significant funds tied up in the success of AI.
I don’t, actually, unless you call index funds “tied up”. To be honest, it’s really distasteful to make a high level comment about this article then have people rush to attack me personally. This is the mentality of a mob.
Ridiculous to say the technology, by itself, is evil somehow. It is not. It is just math at the end of the day. Yes you can question the moral/societal implications of said technology (if used in a negative way) but that does not make the technology itself evil.
For example, I hate vibe coding with a passion because it enables wrong usage (IMHO) of AI. I hate how easy it has become to scam people using AI. How easy it is to create disinformation with AI. Hate how violence/corruption etc could be enabled by using AI tools. Does not mean I hate the tech itself. The tech is really cool. You can use the tech for doing good as much as you can use it for destroying society (or at the very minimum enabling and spreading brainrot). You choose the path you want to tread.
Just do enough good that it dwarfs the evil uses of this awesome technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot about 'open source contributors' and 'musicians'.
As an open source contributor and musician who is not rich, I am pretty stoked about the engineering, scientific and mathematical advancements being made in my lifetime. I have only become more creatively enabled when adopting these tools, and while I share the existential dread of becoming unemployable, I also am wearing machine-fabricated clothing and enjoying a host of other products of automation. I do not have s…
I'd rather be dead than a cortex reaver[1]
(and I suspect as I'm not a billionaire, the billionare owned killbots will make sure of that)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot about 'open source contributors' and 'musicians'.
As an open source contributor and musician who is not rich, I am pretty stoked about the engineering, scientific and mathematical advancements being made in my lifetime. I have only become more creatively enabled when adopting these tools, and while I share the existential dread of becoming unemployable, I also am wearing machine-fabricated clothing and enjoying a host of other products of automation. I do not have s…
I'm not really a fan of the "you criticize society yet you participate in it" argument.
>I understand that one day this era will be history and society will be as integrated with AI as we are with other transformative technologies.
You seem to forget the blood shed over the history that allowed that tech to benefit the people over just the robber barons. Unimaginable amounts of people died just so we could get a 5 day workweek and minimum wage.
We don't get a benficial future by just laying down and letting the people with the most perverse incentives decide the terms. The very least you can do is not impede those trying to fight for those futures if you can't/don't want to fight yourself.
> There’s an extremely hurtful narrative going around that my product, a revolutionary new technology that exists to scam the elderly and make you distrust anything you see online, is harmful to society The article is certainly interesting as yet another indicator of the backlash against AI, but I must say, “exists to scam the elderly” is totally absurd. I get that this is satire, but satire has to have some basis in…
Do you think that it isn't used for this? The satire part is to expand that usecase to say it exists purely for that purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if you make a thing and the thing is going to be inevitably used for a purpose and you could do something about that use and you do not --- then yes, it exists for that purpose, and you are responsible for it being used in that way. you don't get to say "ah well who could have seen this inevitable thing happening? it's a shame nobody could do anything about it" when it was you that could have done something about it.
Yeah. Example: stripper poles. Or hitachi magic wands. Those poles WERE NOT invented for strippers/pole dancers. Ditto for the hitachis. Even now, I'm pretty sure more firemen use the poles than strippers. But that doesn't stop the association from forming. That doesn't make me not feel a certain way if I see a stripper pole or a hitachi magic wand in your living room.
[1] https://thefactbase.com/the-vibrator-was-invented-in-1869-to...
[2] https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/ma...