4 ms·
Read the article. I did, thanks. I don't need you to tell me to do that. The common thread is that they both see AI as a threat. It's a different threat to
by reaperducer 1mo ago
Read the article.
I did, thanks. I don't need you to tell me to do that.
The common thread is that they both see AI as a threat. It's a different threat to each side, but still a threat.
Just because they see different threats from AI doesn't mean that AI isn't a threat.
If one person wants to paint the house red and another person wants to paint the house blue doesn't mean the house doesn't need to be painted.
- jackb4040 1mo ago"I was kind of leaning toward thinking all the talk of doom was a bunch of self-serving regulatory-capture hype" "Just because they see different threats from AI doesn't mean that AI isn't a threat" Why would you make it so blatantly obvious you're acting in bad faith? Do you think the people who post here are stupid?
- reaperducer 1mo agoI really have no idea what you're talking about. With that level of snap hostility toward strangers online, maybe talk to your doctor about upping your meds.
- jackb4040 1mo agoYou made a literally fake post and all replies to it are pointing that out. You haven't made a substantive reply to either.
- aidenn0 1mo agoThinking AI is an existential threat to humanity because it will take over the world and thinking AI is a non-existential threat because it makes disinformation and hacking easier are not even remotely the same thing. It's about as much of a common thread as comparing Shohei Ohtani to a loan-shark's enforcer because they both swing bats at things.
- jackb4040 1mo agoLol I love the metaphor, but it's a bit limited because the fake and real "threat" categories aren't just unrelated, they are opposites. The fake ones are all the AI boosters talk about, the real ones they would never talk about. The fake ones pump their stock price, whereas the real ones undermine it.