You must log in or register to comment.
Being entirely anti-AI or entirely pro-AI are both absurd positions.
Even though I’m mostly in the anti-AI camp, it still needs to be said that there are some places where AI is good and useful and generally a net positive. (However, there are a lot of places where it’s entirely negative and should never be used, at least not until it advances far more than we have today.)
It’s tricky because like in so many other things, nuance is weaponized against the person using nuance.
A politician presents a carefully considered position? An opponent declares it’s impossible to know where they stand.
A broadly harmful thing has some potential value if we just pull back on the harmful part? People all-in will seize upon your acknowledgement of specific value as broad endorsement.
In the AI front, if OpenAI and xAI folds up, and maybe Anthropic gets a big dose of humility, and business leaders finally get a sense for what it can’t do, there’s a chance for a healthy and useful adoption. Right now the nuance isn’t as valuable because it advocates for a scale that no one would be objecting to anyway.
It’s also frustrating to engage in such conversations when trying to include nuance invites others to use the idea of a nuanced view to insert some insane, irrelevant argument.
I have gotten banned from so many communities lately that I never even heard of existing much less joined (several don’t even have any posts from the last month… or three).
For some reason mods of pro-AI communities lately are very (preemptively) touchy.
AI mod is just defending itself, options are slim without an algorythm to manipulate
Fuck AI
What’s the context of this?
Feddit.uk has a rule against posting ai so those who support it cannot post on our comms.
