I do think it's significant that the supporters of this kind of technology seem to be unusually spiteful.
This doesn't happen with all tech; people who like VR don't like it because they want to hurt others, for example. But consistently, whenever AI is discussed, it becomes clear that some people support it just out of malevolence.
The irony here, of course, is that you are casually insulting me for being interested in this tech in the first place and refusing to apologize or back down. Like how the other guy needed to chime in with "dehumanizing and revolting", even though nobody is forcing him to use any of this.
I wouldn't have any problem with you being interested in this tech if it wasn't driven by spite. Lots of people manage this.
But you said
> After reading some of the outraged comments here, I'm even more excited.
The reason you gave for excitement was the upset it causes others. There are people who like AI who aren't driven by malevolence, but you're not one of them.
I’m not surprised, that’s exactly the kind of person who would want this kind of technology.
Remember, society as a whole will decide what's acceptable, there are no objective, natural laws that decide that. My gut feeling is that this is starting to cut close to what most people will find objectionable.
Yes, I'm interested in this. Yes, I think that comments like "dehumanizing and revolting" are a signal. I'm not going to feel bad about exploring this tech. So, yes, I am that person and will continue to be that person.
>society as a whole will decide what's acceptable
So, how would you describe the past few months? Years? You keep saying that we need to reject AI, yet adoption and the gamut of use cases keep ever expanding.
I think there are good use cases for AI, I never said otherwise. Creating simulacra of real people is not one of them, I believe.
> yet adoption and the gamut of use cases keep ever expanding.
I don't see how that's evidence in favor of AI, as many harmful technologies and products became very popular. In fact, that's exactly why I think a slower, more measured approach is necessary. Otherwise once the harms become apparent everyone wants to shrug their shoulders and say, "well it's too late now, everyone's using it."
Hopefully the satisfaction of owning the normies isn't the only benefit you'll get from this technology. Because that would be pretty sad.
I do think it's significant that the supporters of this kind of technology seem to be unusually spiteful.
This doesn't happen with all tech; people who like VR don't like it because they want to hurt others, for example. But consistently, whenever AI is discussed, it becomes clear that some people support it just out of malevolence.
>unusually spiteful
>hurt others
>malevolence
The irony here, of course, is that you are casually insulting me for being interested in this tech in the first place and refusing to apologize or back down. Like how the other guy needed to chime in with "dehumanizing and revolting", even though nobody is forcing him to use any of this.
Nonsense. You were very clear.
I wouldn't have any problem with you being interested in this tech if it wasn't driven by spite. Lots of people manage this.
But you said
> After reading some of the outraged comments here, I'm even more excited.
The reason you gave for excitement was the upset it causes others. There are people who like AI who aren't driven by malevolence, but you're not one of them.
12 replies →
I’m not surprised, that’s exactly the kind of person who would want this kind of technology.
Remember, society as a whole will decide what's acceptable, there are no objective, natural laws that decide that. My gut feeling is that this is starting to cut close to what most people will find objectionable.
>the kind of person
Yes, I'm interested in this. Yes, I think that comments like "dehumanizing and revolting" are a signal. I'm not going to feel bad about exploring this tech. So, yes, I am that person and will continue to be that person.
>society as a whole will decide what's acceptable
So, how would you describe the past few months? Years? You keep saying that we need to reject AI, yet adoption and the gamut of use cases keep ever expanding.
I think there are good use cases for AI, I never said otherwise. Creating simulacra of real people is not one of them, I believe.
> yet adoption and the gamut of use cases keep ever expanding.
I don't see how that's evidence in favor of AI, as many harmful technologies and products became very popular. In fact, that's exactly why I think a slower, more measured approach is necessary. Otherwise once the harms become apparent everyone wants to shrug their shoulders and say, "well it's too late now, everyone's using it."