> Imagine an LLM which actually sounded like you, and to an extent, thought like you. How much would you pay to have access to a smarter version of yourself?
I find the idea dehumanizing and revolting. The notion of then selling it is the spoiled cream on top.
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.
People are upset for lots of reasons, but that's not actually important for this discussion, which is about the fact that your support for AI is apparently conditional on them being upset rather than any positives about AI.
That's weird; fans of [almost anything] don't do that.
Yeah, let's just ignore the bit where we're minding our own business, pursuing what we want, yet you feel the need to bark stuff like "dehumanizing and revolting" at us.
>rather than any positives about AI
I'm a huge supporter of AI. I want this stuff. If this upsets you, I like it even more.
I'm not commenting on the value of AI. I'm talking about your bad-faith interactions here. But given that convenient misunderstanding and point-missing is something you're good at, I don't expect me spelling it out will help much either.
From the first guy's "dehumanizing and revolting" comment to your buddy saying that I'm "malevolent" and "cruel" (lol).
My comprehension is just fine. All the bad-faith interactions here are distinctly coming from your side. And this is why you're still here, trying to get the last word.
>I'm not commenting on the value of AI.
And you're also an anti-AI activist, just like the other guys. This is what you do on a near-daily basis. Why pretend otherwise?
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."
I find the idea dehumanizing and revolting. The notion of then selling it is the spoiled cream on top.