Comment by rl3
5 days ago
>When you say things like "it's easy to understand how someone arrives at that position", you're laying the groundwork to justify why what you class as "callous indifference" is just a logical and natural state that we should accept.
I didn't say it should be accepted nor was I laying groundwork for justification, be it implicit or explicit.
Rather, only stating that such indifference does logically follow in those circumstances.
Quoting my prior comment:
>>Most people's perception of Sam was shaped in recent years, by press coverage that tends to treat him as the face of AI, with sentiment that usually goes something like: "hey, this guy's stealing all your water so he can take your job too, and by the way he lies a lot."
People's reaction here isn't exactly shocking when taken in that context.
>To borrow your language: fuck them, too.
Yeah, agreed.
> Rather, only stating that such indifference does logically follow in those circumstances.
This is exactly what I’m talking about.
>>Rather, only stating that such indifference does logically follow in those circumstances.
>This is exactly what I’m talking about.
In other words: There's a lot of people angry about AI right now, and it isn't much of a surprise that indifference and insensitivity follows.
There were a lot of people angry about secret pedophilia rings run out of the basements of pizza parlors, and violence unspooled from that too.
1 reply →
This feels like a pointless semantic trap. Everything is "waffling" or "wiggling". I don't see the parent saying anything in a disguised manner. It's just that reality is complicated. In the immediate wake of violence, it's exceedingly easy to paint any sentiment aside from "this is horrible" as disrespectful or weasel-worded. That's cheap (as I mentioned elsewhere, it's like the way conservatives refuse to talk about guns in the wake of gun violence).