zlacker

>>vforgi+(OP)
This is the message I shared with my senator (edited to remove information which could identify me). I hope others will send similar messages.

Dear Senator [X],

I am an engineer working for [major employer in the state]. I am extremely concerned about the message that Sam Altman is sharing with the Judiciary committee today.

Altman wants to create regulatory roadblocks to developing AI. My company produces AI-enabled products. If these roadblocks had been in place two years ago, my company would not have been able to invest into AI. Now, because we had the freedom to innovate, AI will be bringing new, high paying jobs to our factories in our state.

While AI regulation is important, it is crucial that there are no roadblocks stopping companies and individuals from even trying to build AIs. Rather, regulation should focus on ensuring the safety of AIs once they are ready to be put into widespread use - this would allow companies and individuals to research new AIs freely while still ensuring that AI products are properly reviewed.

Altman and his ilk try to claim that aggressive regulation (which will only serve to give them a monopoly over AI) is necessary because an AI could hack it's way out of a laboratory. Yet, they cannot explain how an AI would accomplish this in practice. I hope you will push back against anyone who fear-mongers about sci-fi inspired AI scenarios.

Congress should focus on the real impacts that AI will have on employment. Congress should also consider the realistic risks AI which poses to the public, such as risks from the use of AI to control national infrastructure (e.g., the electric grid) or to make healthcare decisions.

Thank you, [My name]

>>elil17+xC
> Altman and his ilk

IANA senator, but if I were you lost me there. The personal insults make it seem petty and completely overshadow the otherwise professional-sounding message.

>>freedo+BK
I don't mean it as a personal insult at all! The word ilk actually means "a type of people or things similar to those already referred to," it is not an insult or rude word.

>>elil17+5N
It’s always used derogatorily. I agree that you should change it if you don’t mean for it to come across that way.

>>mitch3+LO
That's simply untrue. Here are several recently published articles which use ilk in a neutral or positive context:

https://www.telecomtv.com/content/digital-platforms-services...

https://writingillini.com/2023/05/16/illinois-basketball-ill...

https://www.jpost.com/j-spot/article-742911

>>elil17+jR
It is technically true that ilk is not always used derogatorily. But it is almost always derogatory in modern connotation.

https://grammarist.com/words/ilk/#:~:text=It's%20neutral.,a%....

Also, note that all of the negative examples are politics related. If a politician reads the word 'ilk', it is going to be interpreted negatively. It might be the case that ilk does "always mean" a negative connotation in politics.

You could change 'ilk' to 'friends', and keep the same meaning with very little negative connotation. There is still a slight negative connotation here, in the political arena, but it's a very vague shade, and I like it here.

"Altman and his ilk try to claim that..." is a negative phrase because "ilk" is negative, but also because "try to claim" is invalidating and dismissive. So this has elements or notes of an emotional attack, rather than a purely rational argument. If someone is already leaning towards Altman's side, then this will feel like an attack and like you are the enemy.

"Altman claims that..." removes all connotation and sticks to just the facts.

>>dustyl+TZ
Well even if ilk had a negative connotation for my intended audience (which clearly it does to some people), I am actually trying to invalidate and dismiss Altman's arguments.