5 ms·

> We’re focusing the power of this new lens on amplifying the rewards flowing to capital holders because, of course we are. I want technology to be an aid to hu

> We’re focusing the power of this new lens on amplifying the rewards flowing to capital holders because, of course we are. I want technology to be an aid to human creativity, not a necessary crutch. I want to make life better, not shove people aside because they are no longer needed to feed the capitalist greed beast. It’s a bit odd to see this from a writer that joined substack 10 months ago. When it was already famous for associating online blog writing with subscription fees, locking content behind paywalls and so on. Which was too big of a change from the more open wordpress/blogspot/etc. norm for someone to claim ignorance. So I don’t quite buy this anti-capitalist rant, the writer even set up a custom domain name with their substack account, so they clearly understood, implicitly accepting a more monetary blogging system at the very least. There are a lot of greedy people in this world, who probably are mostly self-interested to an unattractive degree, though the folks who are fine associating with them when convenient and denounce them when inconvenient are not any better.

lastangryman 4y ago
I'm not sure I see your point here. You are saying that because the writer signed up to a paid blogging service, and paid for their own domain, their opinion on how AI may replace humans is not valid? A blogging service provides utility. It enables this writer to publish their content, and they've obviously decided that the paid service is better than alternatives. They are expressing concern that AI will replace people current paid to create things, because it's cheaper and will make people more money. The two situations seem completely different to me, I'm not sure I understand your comparison.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  > I'm not sure I see your point here. The writer was fine with associating their online blog writing with subscription fees, locking content behind paywalls and so on 10 months ago. So they were fine with monetization in a scenario when it benefited them, and against when the scenario, AI assisted writing, wasn’t as favourable for them. > You are saying that because the writer signed up to a paid blogging service, and paid for their own domain, their opinion on how AI may replace humans is not valid? This is nonsense, personal opinions can neither be valid nor invalid by definition.
  - lastangryman 4y ago
    They are not against monetization, you have made that leap. They are against AI replacing humans simply because it will be cheaper. Your comparison is flawed.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      > They are not against monetization, you have made that leap. They are against AI replacing humans simply because it will be cheaper. Your comparison is flawed. If they are fine with more expensive AI replacing humans, instead of cheaper AI, then that seems to be an even more objectionable position? I doubt they have such bizarre views. But it’s possible the writer could have incoherent thoughts. For me, the most sensible reading is that they’re against any monetization of AI writing period. Not that they’re fine with AI writing if it’s beyond what most people can afford.
      - beepbooptheory 4y ago
        > If they are fine with more expensive AI replacing humans, instead of cheaper AI, then that seems to be an even more objectionable position?..I doubt they have such bizarre views. But it’s possible the writer could have incoherent thoughts. I am not sure if you are being willfully obtuse, serious, or comedic here, but you made me smile either way, thank you.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        I was surprised and confused too, I hadn’t even considered the possibility!
  - Mike_12345 4y ago
    > So they were fine with monetization in a scenario when it benefited them, and against when the scenario, AI assisted writing, wasn’t as favourable for them. Yes. So what? Not every business is identical. Some businesses are more greedy and ruthless than others. Some provide more societal benefits than others.

lastangryman 4y ago

I'm not sure I see your point here. You are saying that because the writer signed up to a paid blogging service, and paid for their own domain, their opinion on how AI may replace humans is not valid? A blogging service provides utility. It enables this writer to publish their content, and they've obviously decided that the paid service is better than alternatives. They are expressing concern that AI will replace people current paid to create things, because it's cheaper and will make people more money. The two situations seem completely different to me, I'm not sure I understand your comparison.

MichaelZuo 4y ago
> I'm not sure I see your point here. The writer was fine with associating their online blog writing with subscription fees, locking content behind paywalls and so on 10 months ago. So they were fine with monetization in a scenario when it benefited them, and against when the scenario, AI assisted writing, wasn’t as favourable for them. > You are saying that because the writer signed up to a paid blogging service, and paid for their own domain, their opinion on how AI may replace humans is not valid? This is nonsense, personal opinions can neither be valid nor invalid by definition.
- lastangryman 4y ago
  They are not against monetization, you have made that leap. They are against AI replacing humans simply because it will be cheaper. Your comparison is flawed.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    > They are not against monetization, you have made that leap. They are against AI replacing humans simply because it will be cheaper. Your comparison is flawed. If they are fine with more expensive AI replacing humans, instead of cheaper AI, then that seems to be an even more objectionable position? I doubt they have such bizarre views. But it’s possible the writer could have incoherent thoughts. For me, the most sensible reading is that they’re against any monetization of AI writing period. Not that they’re fine with AI writing if it’s beyond what most people can afford.
    - beepbooptheory 4y ago
      > If they are fine with more expensive AI replacing humans, instead of cheaper AI, then that seems to be an even more objectionable position?..I doubt they have such bizarre views. But it’s possible the writer could have incoherent thoughts. I am not sure if you are being willfully obtuse, serious, or comedic here, but you made me smile either way, thank you.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        I was surprised and confused too, I hadn’t even considered the possibility!
- Mike_12345 4y ago
  > So they were fine with monetization in a scenario when it benefited them, and against when the scenario, AI assisted writing, wasn’t as favourable for them. Yes. So what? Not every business is identical. Some businesses are more greedy and ruthless than others. Some provide more societal benefits than others.