> This is the argument that the world is beholden to my interests. It says that worrying about negative externalities is immoral. I agree with you, in that the

> This is the argument that the world is beholden to my interests. It says that worrying about negative externalities is immoral. I agree with you, in that the benefit of the commons (preventing damage AI is doing to the world etc) is better than one individual's 'right' to a perfect product. But I don't think Gruber is saying quite this. He's worried about genuine semantic and intelligence loss, using the example of swapping two words: > The semantic difference between banana and pineapple is just as noticeable to the human eye as the taste of the two are to the human tongue Further, is this really a useful way to reduce the damage of AI? It only appears to work if someone already believes and then proactively checks if text is produced by AI. It doesn't really address the core issues.