Comment by NilMostChill
7 months ago
Shallow take.
Your analogies only work if you don't take in to account there are different degrees of utility/quality/usefulness of the product.
People absolutely crusade against dangerous food, or even just food that has no nutritious benefit.
The parent analogy also only holds up on your happy path.
You've just framed your own argument. In order to be intellectually consistent, you can't crusade against AI in general, but rather bad uses of AI, which (even as an AI supporter) is all I've asked anti-AI folks to do all along.
Computing and AI should be used to do what is humanly impossible, like calculate all the possible paths a hurricane will follow or sequence the human DNA. That would be healthy, cooked food (that wasn't possible until we harnessed fire). If it's just making you lazy and taking away the important part of the thought process, it's junk food. And yeah, LLM unleashed on the bigger population are totally going to make us overall lazier. They will act as "rocket fuel" for the ones that are already wanting to learn and improve, and will tank all the rest, the "normal" people.
I'm aware of my own perspective, i don't generally crusade against whatever flavour of machine learning is being pushed currently.
I was just pointing out that arguing against crusading by using an argument (or analogies) that leaves out half of the salient context could be considered disingenuous.
The difference between:
You're using it incorrectly
vs
Of the ones that are fit for a particular purpose, they can work well if used correctly.
Perhaps i'm just nitpicking.