> I did not make a statement about the rest because it's too complex of a topic to which I do not have enough data to contribute meaningfully to the conversatio

> I did not make a statement about the rest because it's too complex of a topic to which I do not have enough data to contribute meaningfully to the conversation. > There is probably a lot of truth in the tail risks of all of that, and I share these. It just does not at all take away from my enjoyment and optimism at all. On the one hand, I get not expanding on things you don't feel you can contribute to meaningfully and respect that. On the other, isn't this a problem? While I agree with you and cannot fully understand the author's conclusion that it's all bad (I've also found value), I wrestle with the downsides on an ongoing basis and have found myself shying away from using these tools as a result, even though I know they are quite capable of some things. I think that if I only responded "Well, I personally find the tools valuable", that this is only a part of the picture and is a net negative to the overall conversation because the "real" conversation that needs to be had IMO is about those harms, not haggling over whether or not the thing can actually do stuff. There's quite a lot of pro-AI content and opinion floating around right now that amounts to: "Yeah, this thing is dangerous, threatens climate goals, is accelerating an education crisis, only exists because of mass theft, creates a massive category of new problems we don't yet know how to solve...but I'm getting value out of it". And the thing that keeps coming to mind is "Don't Look Up".