3 ms·

That's because you're trying to frame my statement on your terms, rather than catching your breath and thinking. Probably because you didn't understand my point

That's because you're trying to frame my statement on your terms, rather than catching your breath and thinking. Probably because you didn't understand my point but are really excited to tell me how wrong I am. So let me restate it a different way. I'm gravely concerned with the destructive potential of AI and the exploitation in this article is just one of hundreds of negative consequences. Yet advocates of AI are shitting on any attempt to constrain it, and instead are tripping over themselves to monetize it, risks be damned.

miohtama 3y ago
In this particular case of article, the culprits where the boys in the same school. There has been bullying in schools forever. There are social norms, rules and laws to deal with it. In the worst case, you can sue for defamation. For this particular article case, there is no need for new laws or rules. Just take the boys, give them a harsh warning, public humiliation and if it repeats then suspend from the school. Whether there is AI or no AI, it is irrelevant. Whether this is relevant or not about the harms of social media is not related to the AI. If the article headline would be "social media gives new ways to bullying" it would be more to correct. However the article headline is about AI, and is thus a clickbait, and dishonest in its narrative.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
Your emotive, ad-hominem and broad, unsubstantiated claims don't help your argument. There are risks with AI as with anything, and there can be regulation of anything, it's just a question of what, which you don't go into a all. To use your language: it seems you just want to shit on AI and people who want to use and develop it, and these victims are little more than a convenient sensation for you to push your pet peeve.
- demondemidi 3y ago
  > Your emotive, ad-hominem and broad, unsubstantiated claims don't help your argument. Neither do yours. Peace be upon you.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    So in other words: "I know what you are but what am I?" Are juvenile taunts really the best you can do?

miohtama 3y ago

In this particular case of article, the culprits where the boys in the same school. There has been bullying in schools forever. There are social norms, rules and laws to deal with it. In the worst case, you can sue for defamation. For this particular article case, there is no need for new laws or rules. Just take the boys, give them a harsh warning, public humiliation and if it repeats then suspend from the school. Whether there is AI or no AI, it is irrelevant. Whether this is relevant or not about the harms of social media is not related to the AI. If the article headline would be "social media gives new ways to bullying" it would be more to correct. However the article headline is about AI, and is thus a clickbait, and dishonest in its narrative.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

Your emotive, ad-hominem and broad, unsubstantiated claims don't help your argument. There are risks with AI as with anything, and there can be regulation of anything, it's just a question of what, which you don't go into a all. To use your language: it seems you just want to shit on AI and people who want to use and develop it, and these victims are little more than a convenient sensation for you to push your pet peeve.

demondemidi 3y ago
> Your emotive, ad-hominem and broad, unsubstantiated claims don't help your argument. Neither do yours. Peace be upon you.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  So in other words: "I know what you are but what am I?" Are juvenile taunts really the best you can do?