In a letter to the CEOs of OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta, Sanders writes that almost every day brings a new story about how these companies are losing...
Computer science is still science. You distrust the experts in the field based on what? Something you saw on social media? Certainly not your own expertise, that much is clear.
Don’t move the goalposts. No one is claiming that “AI” doesn’t have downsides. That’s different than your original claim that they didn’t do what they appear to do.
I don’t suppose you happen to be in a field threatened by AI? In my anecdotal experience, the people that desperately want to pretend AI is all a scam are actually worried about the opposite, and their job. (A real concern I’m in no way trying to minimize.)
I can’t tell if you’re reading what I’m writing. I mention CEOs twice and you assert I’m not listening to “The Experts”.
No one is claiming that “AI” doesn’t have downsides.
You mean climate damage and psychosis?
Zero of the “experts” in your strained theory about looking for excuses to “pause” AI ever talk about them. It’s almost like they don’t want to imply their product is unworthy of all the hype, doomerism and fearmongering.
You’re not making coherent arguments; it really is like discussing vaccines with an antivaxxer. Maybe take a step back and explain to me what your stance actually is? Bonus points if you learn just a layman’s level understanding of the technology before you post your response.
Since your first post, I’ve been challenging you to justify your thought-terminating cliches, but instead all you do is string together insults like
it really is like discussing vaccines with an antivaxxer.
and slightly less overt ones. You should retract all the personal attacks or at least retract your insincere “apology.”
And for your vague sourceless claims about “experts” need to actually provide sources. Tell me the cult leader Eliezer Yudkowsky isn’t one of your favored “experts.”
I don’t understand the question. Yudkowsky’s book is on my reading list, but judging by the title, I assumed it to be more on the side of restricting AI research, which best aligns with what I think (but suspiciously you refuse to clarify) your stance is.
When I said “the experts” I meant all the people working on AI at these frontier AI companies. You know, the experts?
I disagree with Yudkowsky in pretty much every way possible, and don’t know how you could conclude I agree with him if you saw anything else I posted in this thread. He’s like you, he believes AI is inevitable and wants it to be good too.
When I said “the experts” I meant all the people working on AI at these frontier AI companies
Interesting how you conflate “expert” with “employee” when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
And I asked you earlier about why these “experts” never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is… Do you think it hurts their bottom line?
Computer science is still science. You distrust the experts in the field based on what? Something you saw on social media? Certainly not your own expertise, that much is clear.
Don’t move the goalposts. No one is claiming that “AI” doesn’t have downsides. That’s different than your original claim that they didn’t do what they appear to do.
I don’t suppose you happen to be in a field threatened by AI? In my anecdotal experience, the people that desperately want to pretend AI is all a scam are actually worried about the opposite, and their job. (A real concern I’m in no way trying to minimize.)
Removed by mod
Ignoring the random personal attacks, I’m not on Mastodon like you are, I’m on Lemmy. We don’t have followers, that I am aware of.
I can’t tell if you’re reading what I’m writing. I mention CEOs twice and you assert I’m not listening to “The Experts”.
You mean climate damage and psychosis?
Zero of the “experts” in your strained theory about looking for excuses to “pause” AI ever talk about them. It’s almost like they don’t want to imply their product is unworthy of all the hype, doomerism and fearmongering.
I do not consider the CEOs as experts, no.
You’re not making coherent arguments; it really is like discussing vaccines with an antivaxxer. Maybe take a step back and explain to me what your stance actually is? Bonus points if you learn just a layman’s level understanding of the technology before you post your response.
Since your first post, I’ve been challenging you to justify your thought-terminating cliches, but instead all you do is string together insults like
and slightly less overt ones. You should retract all the personal attacks or at least retract your insincere “apology.”
And for your vague sourceless claims about “experts” need to actually provide sources. Tell me the cult leader Eliezer Yudkowsky isn’t one of your favored “experts.”
If you don’t like that comparison, I suggest you take a hard look at how you’ve approached this topic.
I will happily continue this discussion once I (and presumably you) understand what you’re actually arguing.
I don’t like your insincerity with the fake apology, and I don’t like the insincerity of refusing to back up your claims.
We can start with the simplest question, which I already asked: Do you consider Eliezer Yudkowsky to be one of your “experts”?
I don’t understand the question. Yudkowsky’s book is on my reading list, but judging by the title, I assumed it to be more on the side of restricting AI research, which best aligns with what I think (but suspiciously you refuse to clarify) your stance is.
When I said “the experts” I meant all the people working on AI at these frontier AI companies. You know, the experts?
I disagree with Yudkowsky in pretty much every way possible, and don’t know how you could conclude I agree with him if you saw anything else I posted in this thread. He’s like you, he believes AI is inevitable and wants it to be good too.
Interesting how you conflate “expert” with “employee” when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
And I asked you earlier about why these “experts” never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is… Do you think it hurts their bottom line?
I answered your non sequitur as a show of good faith. Your turn: what precisely is the stance you’re arguing here?