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...
Now I’m interested in 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?
Now I’m interested in 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 know it has already been said, but even your tactics resemble anti-intellectualism. You don’t need to keep hammering the same questions; I will get to them. Calm down, there isn’t a prize at the end; there is no winner or loser. We’re just having a discussion. Breathe.
That link didn’t answer my question, so I have to ask more questions. Are you saying that AI will not (can not?) be a threat to humanity, ever? And is the rationale for that conclusion because you don’t think AI actually works?
Calm down, there isn’t a prize at the end; there is no winner or loser. We’re just having a discussion. Breathe.
You started this off claiming that this person is equivalent to an antivaxxer. You’ve repeatedly dismissed their claims/thoughts based on credentialism without demonstrating why. Now you’re telling them to calm down. I’m not even the person you’re arguing with here and I’m getting mad lol.
They are using the same playbook as antivaxxers. There’s no way around the comparison. It wasn’t meant as an insult, but as an observation. Notice they didn’t correct me, but instead indicated that it hurt their feelings.
I’m not arguing with anyone; they have not yet made a point that required more than a factual correction, or a point that was just a conspiracy theory.
You definitely shouldn’t get mad about it though, haha.
Do you really think that your insults are less insulting if you follow them up with condescension? If you refuse to answer my questions, just say so, instead of being a douchebag.
I answered you twice, “in good faith” as you like to say, and it’s clear that’s something you’re not here in.
You haven’t answered my questions, hence why I still have questions. I promise you that, even if it’s the last comment I make to you, I will answer your questions. They’re not the gotcha you apparently believe them to be and are essentially a waste of time to answer, but they appear super important so I will get to them.
First I want to understand your stance. All I’ve got now is that a blog said AI isn’t actually dangerous, and you concur. Why do you think this?
That AI doomerism is AI marketing.
Now I’m interested in 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?
Slow down, sir or ma’am. We’ll get to your questions, I promise.
What does “AI Doomerism” mean? I am not familiar with the term.
https://ondiscourse.com/ai-doomerism-is-a-business-tactic/
Now I’m interested in 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 know it has already been said, but even your tactics resemble anti-intellectualism. You don’t need to keep hammering the same questions; I will get to them. Calm down, there isn’t a prize at the end; there is no winner or loser. We’re just having a discussion. Breathe.
That link didn’t answer my question, so I have to ask more questions. Are you saying that AI will not (can not?) be a threat to humanity, ever? And is the rationale for that conclusion because you don’t think AI actually works?
You started this off claiming that this person is equivalent to an antivaxxer. You’ve repeatedly dismissed their claims/thoughts based on credentialism without demonstrating why. Now you’re telling them to calm down. I’m not even the person you’re arguing with here and I’m getting mad lol.
They are using the same playbook as antivaxxers. There’s no way around the comparison. It wasn’t meant as an insult, but as an observation. Notice they didn’t correct me, but instead indicated that it hurt their feelings.
I’m not arguing with anyone; they have not yet made a point that required more than a factual correction, or a point that was just a conspiracy theory.
You definitely shouldn’t get mad about it though, haha.
Do you really think that your insults are less insulting if you follow them up with condescension? If you refuse to answer my questions, just say so, instead of being a douchebag.
I answered you twice, “in good faith” as you like to say, and it’s clear that’s something you’re not here in.
You haven’t answered my questions, hence why I still have questions. I promise you that, even if it’s the last comment I make to you, I will answer your questions. They’re not the gotcha you apparently believe them to be and are essentially a waste of time to answer, but they appear super important so I will get to them.
First I want to understand your stance. All I’ve got now is that a blog said AI isn’t actually dangerous, and you concur. Why do you think this?