Comment by andymasley
7 months ago
I think each are net bad and shouldn't exist yes, but I also think each is useful in specific contexts. Not sure why that's not relevant, it's a direct example of stuff that's useful but net bad.
7 months ago
I think each are net bad and shouldn't exist yes, but I also think each is useful in specific contexts. Not sure why that's not relevant, it's a direct example of stuff that's useful but net bad.
Wait are you saying that you think that chat bots are a net bad that shouldn’t exist because of the cheating and the false information but you can sort a list or are you saying despite the cheating and false information chat bots are a net positive that should exist because you can sort a list?
I'm not making a claim about whether they're good overall or not, I'm saying 1) Reasonable people can think they're bad overall. 2) It's not reasonable to say they're literally always useless.
I said your list was not relevant if you didn't believe the items on it should not exist, but that's not the case.
Frankly, the inherent contradiction of your vehement support for something you think shouldn't exist has confounded me, and your position that video games, guns, and alcohol also should not exist is so far on the fringe of society that it's hard to take at face value.
Sorry this is pretty straightforward. If I'm Kim Jong Un, a nuclear weapon is extremely useful to me. That doesn't mean I think overall a world where nuclear weapons exist is good. I'm confused why you think "useful" needs to have this additional meaning of "good overall"
Equating TikTok (which I am not a fan of but can see the entertainment value), video games (which I do enjoy), and nuclear weapons (which is basically the only thing in existence that can wipe humans off the earth) is absurd. A user of TikTok and a "user" of a nuclear bomb are not equivalent in any way, and therefore claiming this is an example of your "straightforward" reasoning is also absurd.
I am not conflating "useful" and "good overall". You are the one claiming that something (let's pick TikTok) is useful to its users, but shouldn't exist. Why should something that is useful to its users not exist?
When you say useful in this case, I think you mean that users are deriving short term pleasure from interacting with the app by choice. You also seem to believe that the long term effects of near-constant social media consumption are so harmful that it should be banned. In my mind, if the latter is true, the short term pleasure is not in reality useful. If the latter is false, then the short term pleasure could be considered "useful" but there's no need for a ban.
This pattern also seems to hold with your example of students using chatGPT to avoid writing papers themselves. If I needed to succinctly describe the actions of someone who is spending tens of thousands of dollars a year and at least several hundred hours a year at a place for the express purpose of learning yet also actively avoids making effort to learn, "stupid" is a word that jumps to mind. Yet you seem to be arguing that is not the case because they know they're making a bad decision, which is hard to accept as an attempt at honest dialogue.
In both cases, people are trading long term gains for short term enjoyment. Calling that choice "stupid" may be rude or blunt, but it's not incorrect in most instances.
I'm not trying to put words into your mouth so I would welcome an actual answer to my question above (Why should something that is useful to its users not exist?), but I did want to explain what seems to me like an inherent contradiction in your position.
6 replies →