• Optional@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    Literally every piece of technology introduced in the past thousand years has had this kind of hue and cry built up around it, beginning with the printing press and books in Europe.

    The ill-concieved printing press argument is a standard pro-AI trope.

    Remember when television would “rot kids’ minds”? Remember when the Internet was going to end civilization as we know it?

    Yeah, i don’t know where you live but here in America our democracy is in shreds thanks to those things. They came true, just as they said it would. Environmental collapse is next, for those keeping score at home.

    • ZDL@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      The ill-concieved printing press argument is a standard pro-AI trope.

      P.S. Characterizing my post as pro-AI is so utterly fucking stupid it speaks volumes as to the real source of your nation’s tattered democracy. Just sayin’.

    • ZDL@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      You had an enormously destructive civil war in the 19th century, but yes, go ahead and blame television and the Internet on your democracy being in tatters.

      News flash, homey: your democracy was in tatters from the very outset. It has never not been in tatters.

      • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        News flash, homey: your democracy was in tatters from the very outset. It has never not been in tatters.

        Since you apparently don’t live here, we’ll leave it there then.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Saying knee jerk rejection of new technology is common is pro-ai?
      If it’s such a bad, ill-concieved notion, why don’t you explain why it’s wrong, instead of just saying that it’s used by people you disagree with?

      Maybe if an argument is used by both pro and anti AI people, it’s less a “pro-ai” argument, and more a “let’s keep in mind how often doom and gloom has been wrong and keep our criticism grounded”?

      • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        If it’s such a bad, ill-concieved notion, why don’t you explain why it’s wrong, instead of just saying that it’s used by people you disagree with?

        Again? No. Maybe someone else feels like explaining it this time.

        “let’s keep in mind how often doom and gloom has been wrong and keep our criticism grounded”?

        My good dude, the sentient life on this planet is about to witness several extinction events in our lifetime because we ignored the grounded “doom and gloom” research. If you want to stand on the big red X this time while a loud whistling noise and billionaire cackling gets louder, that’s up to you but as many people have tried to say before - it’s a bad idea, don’t do it.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          Yeah, you’re attacking people who agree with you, but disagree with your notion that we can ignore “reality” in describing why it’s a bad idea.

          Have fun with that.