3 ms·
That's not what I'm saying. My argument is that using a machine to replace your thinking, your voice, or your relationships is a very bad thing. Humans have in
by ashton314 1y ago
That's not what I'm saying.
My argument is that using a machine to replace your thinking, your voice, or your relationships is a very bad thing. Humans have intrinsic worth—machines do not.
- vouaobrasil 1y ago> My argument is that using a machine to replace your thinking, your voice, or your relationships is a very bad thing. Humans have intrinsic worth—machines do not. I agree with that, and the only logical path if we are to preserve this principle is to eradicate AI, and not try and control it. There is no way to control it (think prisoner's dilemma, greedy individuals, etc.)
- cwmoore 1y agoNo, what will happen is that time wasted believing in magical LLMs, instead of developing technical and interpersonal skills will prove unproductive longterm. Like most goldrush claims not panning out, it will be followed by broad amorality among the newly destitute. Read a book.
- vouaobrasil 1y agoUnproductive for the person perhaps, but not for the development of technology. But I do agree in general that using AI is not a great strategy for human beings. Read a book indeed.
- eru 1y agoOK, humans have intrinsic worth, sure. But why then do you mourn when a computer takes over a job that a human used to do? The human still has her same intrinsic worth as before. Your worth ain't defined by your job.
- ashton314 1y agoComputers can do a lot of human jobs. But something I believe is fundamental to the human experience is the connection with other humans. Using an LLM or similar technology as a means to circumvent or shirk such connection is reprehensible. Using a computer to do another job is fine.
- eru 1y agoWe long replaced live musicians with machines. Do you want to rail against that one, too? What could be more intimate and connecting than music?