My interpretation was "If an industry that actively works to harm the global health of humanity through their addictive and unhealthy food products is using way more water and we're OK with it, maybe we should give a pass to the industry using a fraction of that water to improve human productivity."
Ton of nuance in my characterizations of both industries, of course, but to a first approximation they are accurate.
Well, the food industry continues churning billions in profits at the expense of our health, so statistically speaking, looks like "we" are OK with!
Totally agreed that criticism should be directed where it's due. But what this thread is saying is that criticism of GenAI is misdirected. I haven't seen nearly as much consternation over e.g. the food industry as I'm seeing over AI -- an industry that increasingly looks like its utility exceeds its costs.
(If the last part sounds hypothetical, in past comments I've linked a number of reports, including government-affiliated sources, finding noticeable benefits from GenAI adoption.)
Attempt generosity. Can you think of another way to interpret the comment above yours? Is it more likely they are calling their own argument a red herring, or the one they are responding to?
If something looks like a "weird stance", consider trying harder to understand it. It's better for everyone else in the conversation.
My interpretation was "If an industry that actively works to harm the global health of humanity through their addictive and unhealthy food products is using way more water and we're OK with it, maybe we should give a pass to the industry using a fraction of that water to improve human productivity."
Ton of nuance in my characterizations of both industries, of course, but to a first approximation they are accurate.
> and we're OK with it
Are we? Is anybody? Criticism doesn't need to be directed towards one thing at a time.
Well, the food industry continues churning billions in profits at the expense of our health, so statistically speaking, looks like "we" are OK with!
Totally agreed that criticism should be directed where it's due. But what this thread is saying is that criticism of GenAI is misdirected. I haven't seen nearly as much consternation over e.g. the food industry as I'm seeing over AI -- an industry that increasingly looks like its utility exceeds its costs.
(If the last part sounds hypothetical, in past comments I've linked a number of reports, including government-affiliated sources, finding noticeable benefits from GenAI adoption.)
2 replies →
No it’s a red herring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring)
It’s a fundamentally flawed argument
What a weird stance. You agree to mislead or distract from a relevant or important question?
Attempt generosity. Can you think of another way to interpret the comment above yours? Is it more likely they are calling their own argument a red herring, or the one they are responding to?
If something looks like a "weird stance", consider trying harder to understand it. It's better for everyone else in the conversation.
I was supporting the GPs premise directly