3 ms·

If it doesn't help average people, why do millions of them pay for it?

by dash2 2mo ago

caughtinthought 2mo ago
Ask DraftKings?
- MattGaiser 2mo ago
  Gambling has consistently ranked above family for many in human history, so while it hurts a third party, the people involved genuinely believe in it.
- dash2 2mo ago
  You'd need this argument to be a lot more concrete as to why AI is like gambling.
  - zahlman 2mo ago
    I actually have seen comparisons of using AI to a gacha game (quotas per time block, elements of chance, sycophancy in the output leading towards addiction or even psychosis in rare cases). But I don't think the argument needs to be "AI is like gambling". The argument only needs to be "humans often behave irrationally and even self-destructively".
  - voxl 2mo ago
    This is not the argument. It's not a comparison to gambling but a comparison to something that does not materially improve a person's life. Economic expenditure does not equate to human benefit. This is the original argument, and the onus is on THAT person to explain why people spending for AI actually benefit, not the other way around. Perhaps you can ask Claude to explain it to you.
    - dash2 2mo ago
      I think it’s widely accepted that most things are bought because they satisfy people’s needs or wants. Sure, there are exceptions, like drugs or gambling. Is there any reason to think AI is one of them?
      - oblio 2mo ago
        Drugs, gambling, alcohol, tobacco, vaping, ultra processed foods, social media, luxury goods/conspicuous consumption, etc. A lot of humans are incredibly bad at allocating money.
ausbah 2mo ago
addiction? get lured in with the promises of enhanced productivity and knowledge asking, leave with half your brain rotted and a $200/month subscription
class3shock 2mo ago
So if millions of people pay for something it must be helping average people but if 10s of millions of average people express concerns about a thing than what? I would assume since you were happy to go with the will of the people when it supported your argument, you would be in complete support of actually regulating ai and addressing the many concerns of society at large? https://www.reuters.com/world/us/americans-fear-ai-permanently-displacing-workers-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2025-08-19/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/americans-fear-ai-permanent...
- dash2 2mo ago
  I'm fine with regulating AI. I'd note that saying something in a poll is cheap talk whereas paying 20$ a month is not. But I can understand e.g. that people may derive value from their cars, whilst simultaneously being concerned about global warming and traffic jams.

If it doesn't help average people, why do millions of them pay for it?

by dash2 2mo ago

If it doesn't help average people, why do millions of them pay for it?

caughtinthought 2mo ago

Ask DraftKings?

MattGaiser 2mo ago
Gambling has consistently ranked above family for many in human history, so while it hurts a third party, the people involved genuinely believe in it.
dash2 2mo ago
You'd need this argument to be a lot more concrete as to why AI is like gambling.
- zahlman 2mo ago
  I actually have seen comparisons of using AI to a gacha game (quotas per time block, elements of chance, sycophancy in the output leading towards addiction or even psychosis in rare cases). But I don't think the argument needs to be "AI is like gambling". The argument only needs to be "humans often behave irrationally and even self-destructively".
- voxl 2mo ago
  This is not the argument. It's not a comparison to gambling but a comparison to something that does not materially improve a person's life. Economic expenditure does not equate to human benefit. This is the original argument, and the onus is on THAT person to explain why people spending for AI actually benefit, not the other way around. Perhaps you can ask Claude to explain it to you.
  - dash2 2mo ago
    I think it’s widely accepted that most things are bought because they satisfy people’s needs or wants. Sure, there are exceptions, like drugs or gambling. Is there any reason to think AI is one of them?
    - oblio 2mo ago
      Drugs, gambling, alcohol, tobacco, vaping, ultra processed foods, social media, luxury goods/conspicuous consumption, etc. A lot of humans are incredibly bad at allocating money.

ausbah 2mo ago

addiction? get lured in with the promises of enhanced productivity and knowledge asking, leave with half your brain rotted and a $200/month subscription

class3shock 2mo ago

So if millions of people pay for something it must be helping average people but if 10s of millions of average people express concerns about a thing than what? I would assume since you were happy to go with the will of the people when it supported your argument, you would be in complete support of actually regulating ai and addressing the many concerns of society at large? https://www.reuters.com/world/us/americans-fear-ai-permanently-displacing-workers-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2025-08-19/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/americans-fear-ai-permanent...

dash2 2mo ago
I'm fine with regulating AI. I'd note that saying something in a poll is cheap talk whereas paying 20$ a month is not. But I can understand e.g. that people may derive value from their cars, whilst simultaneously being concerned about global warming and traffic jams.