this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2026
395 points (97.1% liked)
Technology
87598 readers
3788 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Uh-huh. You compared me to an antivaxxer , implying that people who disagree with you don't believe in science or technology - the same reason you felt the need to throw in the "inevitability" cliche. Which I do not buy, and somebody claiming to understand the technology should never repeat.
Later, you say anyone who disagrees with you just feels "desperate" and "threatened." You're really pulling everything from the "I am rational and you are neurotic" playbook aren't you.
It's all the same song and dance. Dario Amodei screams "hold me back!" because he loves pretending his product is Great and Powerful.
Why do these developers never talk about real harms like the environmental damage they cause? How about the psychosis they are liable to fall into?
It's pretty obvious they're just doing marketing, knowingly or not. And these are smart people who should know better.
@XLE I reported the little troll.
Computer science is still science. You distrust the experts in the field based on what? Something you saw on social media? Certainly not your own expertise, that much is clear.
Don't move the goalposts. No one is claiming that "AI" doesn't have downsides. That's different than your original claim that they didn't do what they appear to do.
I don't suppose you happen to be in a field threatened by AI? In my anecdotal experience, the people that desperately want to pretend AI is all a scam are actually worried about the opposite, and their job. (A real concern I'm in no way trying to minimize.)
I can't tell if you're reading what I'm writing. I mention CEOs twice and you assert I'm not listening to "The Experts".
You mean climate damage and psychosis?
Zero of the "experts" in your strained theory about looking for excuses to "pause" AI ever talk about them. It's almost like they don't want to imply their product is unworthy of all the hype, doomerism and fearmongering.
I do not consider the CEOs as experts, no.
You're not making coherent arguments; it really is like discussing vaccines with an antivaxxer. Maybe take a step back and explain to me what your stance actually is? Bonus points if you learn just a layman's level understanding of the technology before you post your response.
Since your first post, I've been challenging you to justify your thought-terminating cliches, but instead all you do is string together insults like
and slightly less overt ones. You should retract all the personal attacks or at least retract your insincere "apology."
And for your vague sourceless claims about "experts" need to actually provide sources. Tell me the cult leader Eliezer Yudkowsky isn't one of your favored "experts."
If you don't like that comparison, I suggest you take a hard look at how you've approached this topic.
I will happily continue this discussion once I (and presumably you) understand what you're actually arguing.
I don't like your insincerity with the fake apology, and I don't like the insincerity of refusing to back up your claims.
We can start with the simplest question, which I already asked: Do you consider Eliezer Yudkowsky to be one of your "experts"?
I don't understand the question. Yudkowsky's book is on my reading list, but judging by the title, I assumed it to be more on the side of restricting AI research, which best aligns with what I think (but suspiciously you refuse to clarify) your stance is.
When I said "the experts" I meant all the people working on AI at these frontier AI companies. You know, the experts?
I disagree with Yudkowsky in pretty much every way possible, and don't know how you could conclude I agree with him if you saw anything else I posted in this thread. He's like you, he believes AI is inevitable and wants it to be good too.
Interesting how you conflate "expert" with "employee" when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
And I asked you earlier about why these "experts" never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is... Do you think it hurts their bottom line?
I answered your non sequitur as a show of good faith. Your turn: what precisely is the stance you're arguing here?
That AI doomerism is AI marketing.
Now I'm interested in how you conflate “expert” with “employee” when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
And I asked you earlier about why these “experts” never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is… Do you think it hurts their bottom line?
Slow down, sir or ma'am. We'll get to your questions, I promise.
What does "AI Doomerism" mean? I am not familiar with the term.
https://ondiscourse.com/ai-doomerism-is-a-business-tactic/
Now I’m interested in how you conflate “expert” with “employee” when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
And I asked you earlier about why these “experts” never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is… Do you think it hurts their bottom line?
I know it has already been said, but even your tactics resemble anti-intellectualism. You don't need to keep hammering the same questions; I will get to them. Calm down, there isn't a prize at the end; there is no winner or loser. We're just having a discussion. Breathe.
That link didn't answer my question, so I have to ask more questions. Are you saying that AI will not (can not?) be a threat to humanity, ever? And is the rationale for that conclusion because you don't think AI actually works?
You started this off claiming that this person is equivalent to an antivaxxer. You've repeatedly dismissed their claims/thoughts based on credentialism without demonstrating why. Now you're telling them to calm down. I'm not even the person you're arguing with here and I'm getting mad lol.
They are using the same playbook as antivaxxers. There's no way around the comparison. It wasn't meant as an insult, but as an observation. Notice they didn't correct me, but instead indicated that it hurt their feelings.
I'm not arguing with anyone; they have not yet made a point that required more than a factual correction, or a point that was just a conspiracy theory.
You definitely shouldn't get mad about it though, haha.
Do you really think that your insults are less insulting if you follow them up with condescension? If you refuse to answer my questions, just say so, instead of being a douchebag.
I answered you twice, "in good faith" as you like to say, and it's clear that's something you're not here in.
You haven't answered my questions, hence why I still have questions. I promise you that, even if it's the last comment I make to you, I will answer your questions. They're not the gotcha you apparently believe them to be and are essentially a waste of time to answer, but they appear super important so I will get to them.
First I want to understand your stance. All I've got now is that a blog said AI isn't actually dangerous, and you concur. Why do you think this?
@joe seems pretty clear to me.
-"AI" isn't inevitable
-people who claim otherwise are mostly doing marketing for products in which they're invested
-experts on "AI" should include more than those employed by the companies trying to make a profit off it
Yudkowsky was not a non sequitur; you were asked which experts you consult, you then refused to name any, so your interlocutor tried speculating about who might qualify for you.
Hope this helps, Joe!
@XLE
Ignoring the random personal attacks, I'm not on Mastodon like you are, I'm on Lemmy. We don't have followers, that I am aware of.