Wow, using a marginalized group who are actively being persecuted as your mouthpiece, in a way that doesn’t make sense as an analogy. Attacking LGBTQI+ rights is unethical, period. Where your analogy falls apart is in categorically rejecting a broad suite of technologies as “unethical” even as plenty of people show plenty of examples of when that’s not the case. It’s like when people point to studies showing that sugar can sometimes be harmful and then saying, “See! Carbs are all bad!”
So thank you for exemplifying exactly the kind of dishonesty I’m talking about.
My comment is too short to fit the required nuance, but my point is clear, and it’s not that absurd false dichotomy. You said you’re warming up to some AI because of how some people criticize it. That shouldn’t be how a reasonable person decides whether something is OK or not. I just provided an example of how that doesn’t work.
If you want to talk about marginalized groups, I’m open to discussing how GenAI promotion and usage is massively harming creative workers worldwide—the work of which is often already considered lesser than that of their STEM peers—many of whom are part of that very marginalized group you’re defending.
Obviously not all AI, nor all GenAI, are bad. That said, current trends for GenAI are harmful, and if you promote them as they are, without accountability, or needlessly attack people trying to resist them and protect the victims, you’re not making things better.
I know that broken arguments of people who don’t understand all the details of the tech can get tiring. But at this stage, I’ll take someone who doesn’t entirely understand how AI works but wants to help protect people over someone who only cares about technology marching onwards, the people it’s hurting be dammed.
Hurt, desperate people lash out, sometimes wrongly. I think a more respectable attitude here would be helping steer their efforts, rather than diminishing them and attacking their integrity because you don’t like how they talk.
Wow, using a marginalized group who are actively being persecuted as your mouthpiece, in a way that doesn’t make sense as an analogy. Attacking LGBTQI+ rights is unethical, period. Where your analogy falls apart is in categorically rejecting a broad suite of technologies as “unethical” even as plenty of people show plenty of examples of when that’s not the case. It’s like when people point to studies showing that sugar can sometimes be harmful and then saying, “See! Carbs are all bad!”
So thank you for exemplifying exactly the kind of dishonesty I’m talking about.
My comment is too short to fit the required nuance, but my point is clear, and it’s not that absurd false dichotomy. You said you’re warming up to some AI because of how some people criticize it. That shouldn’t be how a reasonable person decides whether something is OK or not. I just provided an example of how that doesn’t work.
If you want to talk about marginalized groups, I’m open to discussing how GenAI promotion and usage is massively harming creative workers worldwide—the work of which is often already considered lesser than that of their STEM peers—many of whom are part of that very marginalized group you’re defending.
Obviously not all AI, nor all GenAI, are bad. That said, current trends for GenAI are harmful, and if you promote them as they are, without accountability, or needlessly attack people trying to resist them and protect the victims, you’re not making things better.
I know that broken arguments of people who don’t understand all the details of the tech can get tiring. But at this stage, I’ll take someone who doesn’t entirely understand how AI works but wants to help protect people over someone who only cares about technology marching onwards, the people it’s hurting be dammed.
Hurt, desperate people lash out, sometimes wrongly. I think a more respectable attitude here would be helping steer their efforts, rather than diminishing them and attacking their integrity because you don’t like how they talk.