Comment by mmooss
2 days ago
> This is not intended to be AI advocacy
I think it is: It fits the pattern, which seems almost universally used, of turning the aggressor A into the victim and thus the critic C into an aggressor. It also changes the topic (from A's behavior to C's), and puts C on the defensive. Denying / claiming innocence is also a very common tactic.
> You can easily get death threats if you're associating yourself with AI publicly.
What differentiates serious claims from more of the above and from Internet stuff is evidence. Is there some evidence somewhere of that?
Feel free to think that I'm lying or whatever. This is just armchair psychologizing.
This has nothing to do with aggressors or victims. A hypothesis has been provided to explain the data we have, the hypothesis was rejected because it it seemed unintuitive that someone would have distanced themselves, I provided an explanation that accounts for why they would have.
That is, my explanation accounts for the user distancing themselves from AI by appealing to the risk of reputational harm that exists. You don't have to accept that, you can say some other explanation is more plausible, or whatever, but all I have done is provide an explanation - in no way is this an attempt to frame anyone as "aggressor" or "victim".
If you think this is a "pro AI" or "anti AI" stance (A) I don't give a shit, it isn't, and you can just think I'm lying (B) you seem confused about the purpose of the post, which is merely to provide an explanation that accounts for the data.