> Gullible people can now automatically be detected and exploited, gnawed down to the bone and thrown away with none of the people who harvest their resources ever meeting or even thinking of them, but you are too smart for that, so it's fine. You don't need there to be a public space that is rational and allows humans to grow in, you had parents, you had an education, and there isn't anyone dear to you that you'd have to worry about either.
You misunderstand. I don't posit that the educated classes are actually much or often any better off. All you have to do to convince them of something that is true is imply it's low class and boorish to think otherwise, and provide a sophisticated intellectual justification. Less educated people are often harder to fool because many of them have a reflexive distrust of sophisticated intellectual justifications and authority. What I said was that an educated and informed person would be capable of disproving false claims, much more so than they were 100+ years ago.
The difference here is that you believe the educated and intelligent (no doubt as determined by your preferences) should make decisions on others' behalf about what resources should be available to them. That is not what democratic societies are about; of course we've long been on the path for an authoritarian managerial state broadly throughout the West, and for better or worse that's ultimately what you're arguing for.
> But at the same time demanding the public to support more of what benefits you. Why?
Freely available, unrestricted AI net benefits everyone, though there will undoubtedly be social disruption and adjustments, as there is with all new technology. Restricted AI, tightly regulated and controlled, with the best stuff gatekept, benefits a very small class of people.
This is even more obvious when you consider the obvious outcomes here: it's trivial for someone with local models to download satellite imagery and modify it however they want, then use it to create and post misinformation. So you're not stopping everyone. You don't have any hope or possibility of doing so. You just want to gatekeep it away from regular people, who might have all kinds of legitimate uses for it, including things neither of us have ever thought of.
> Frankly, this seems so callous and myopic I think you would last nowhere near as long in a true post-factual-reality pandemonium as you think you would, either.
The world got along quite fine in this pandemonium prior to the 20th century.