zlacker

>>jger15+(OP)
I love all these bait and switch AI articles. Every blogger that writes essays that appear to start with one premise and ends with “I like those chat bots they are good” is very smart and contributing greatly to the quality of the internet

>>jrflow+Bb
And they always double-end on an “everyone that straight-up hates AI is an asshole and should burn in hell”, as this one does too.

>>kotaKa+Dc
Hi I’m the author, pretty confused about how you can come away with this reading. I say at the end that a lot of AI criticism is correct, there’s just this specific type I think is lazy

>>andyma+ye
You literally say that you lose respect for people that don’t agree with you about chat bots.

Seeing that your essay is about people’s presumptions about one another, and you say that you lose respect for people based on their chat bot opinions without a lick of self-awareness around the topic of the essay it can be concluded that your overall thesis is that people that don’t like chat bots like you do are inherently less worthy of respect.

>>jrflow+Ze
I say in the post I lose respect for people who specifically claim that a billion people are using an app that adds absolutely nothing to their lives each week, not people who dislike chatbots for other reasons (hallucinations etc.). So I think a lot of people are getting a lot of misinformation from TikTok, and I think it’d be better if TikTok didn’t exist, but I’d consider anyone who said that TikTok is completely useless to its users to be pretty goofy. I feel the same about chatbots.

>>andyma+Hg
How can you both think TikTok shouldn't exist and think that it's useful to its users, without using a pretty unique definition of useful?

>>bpt3+Cl
There's a ton of stuff I think is useful in specific circumstances but can be bad overall.

-Video games: Provide fun, but probably overall bad for society bc people waste too much time on them.

-Alcohol: Most drinkers get a lot of value out of drinking, but alcoholism is so bad that on net alcohol's probably bad.

-Guns & nuclear weapons: Wish both didn't exist, but each provides a lot of use to the specific people who have them.

-TikTok: Overall causes too many people to believe misinformation, but for a lot of other people is fun or interesting.

It's possible to think AI chatbots are net bad because people use them to cheat, or they rely on them for information too much and believe false information, without believing that they are always useless in all circumstances. I can use ChatGPT to alphabetize a long list for me. That's useful, even if I think overall chatbots are net bad.

>>andyma+Cv
Are you saying you also believe video games, alcohol, and guns shouldn't exist?

If so, that's a pretty radical position, and if not I don't understand how they're relevant.

>>bpt3+dZ
I think each are net bad and shouldn't exist yes, but I also think each is useful in specific contexts. Not sure why that's not relevant, it's a direct example of stuff that's useful but net bad.

>>andyma+Jb1
I said your list was not relevant if you didn't believe the items on it should not exist, but that's not the case.

Frankly, the inherent contradiction of your vehement support for something you think shouldn't exist has confounded me, and your position that video games, guns, and alcohol also should not exist is so far on the fringe of society that it's hard to take at face value.

>>bpt3+kO1
Sorry this is pretty straightforward. If I'm Kim Jong Un, a nuclear weapon is extremely useful to me. That doesn't mean I think overall a world where nuclear weapons exist is good. I'm confused why you think "useful" needs to have this additional meaning of "good overall"

>>andyma+eT1
Equating TikTok (which I am not a fan of but can see the entertainment value), video games (which I do enjoy), and nuclear weapons (which is basically the only thing in existence that can wipe humans off the earth) is absurd. A user of TikTok and a "user" of a nuclear bomb are not equivalent in any way, and therefore claiming this is an example of your "straightforward" reasoning is also absurd.

I am not conflating "useful" and "good overall". You are the one claiming that something (let's pick TikTok) is useful to its users, but shouldn't exist. Why should something that is useful to its users not exist?

When you say useful in this case, I think you mean that users are deriving short term pleasure from interacting with the app by choice. You also seem to believe that the long term effects of near-constant social media consumption are so harmful that it should be banned. In my mind, if the latter is true, the short term pleasure is not in reality useful. If the latter is false, then the short term pleasure could be considered "useful" but there's no need for a ban.

This pattern also seems to hold with your example of students using chatGPT to avoid writing papers themselves. If I needed to succinctly describe the actions of someone who is spending tens of thousands of dollars a year and at least several hundred hours a year at a place for the express purpose of learning yet also actively avoids making effort to learn, "stupid" is a word that jumps to mind. Yet you seem to be arguing that is not the case because they know they're making a bad decision, which is hard to accept as an attempt at honest dialogue.

In both cases, people are trading long term gains for short term enjoyment. Calling that choice "stupid" may be rude or blunt, but it's not incorrect in most instances.

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth so I would welcome an actual answer to my question above (Why should something that is useful to its users not exist?), but I did want to explain what seems to me like an inherent contradiction in your position.