1. Post in [email protected] attacks the entire concept of AI safety as a made-up boogeyman
  2. I disagree and am attacked from all sides for “posting like an evangelist”
  3. I give citations for things I thought would be obvious, such as that AI technology in general has been improving in capability compared to several years ago
  4. Instance ban, “promptfondling evangelist”

This one I’m not aggrieved about as much, it’s just weird. It’s reminiscent of the lemmy.ml type of echo chamber where everyone’s convinced it’s one way, because in a self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone who is not convinced gets yelled at and receives a ban.

Full context: https://ponder.cat/post/1030285 (Some of my replies were after the ban because I didn’t PT Barnum carefully enough, so didn’t realize.)

  • Susaga@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    If the curtain catches fire, then pandora’s box has already been opened and you might as well start spraying gasoline around the room. No point trying to fix problems when we can just accept that the room is on fire and start preparing to be fireproof.

    AI is a shitty attempt at a shitty thing. If it improves your work, then your work was REALLY bad. If it gets better, then it will be a GOOD attempt at a shitty thing. Your work is STILL really bad, but now you have a machine to make things you claim credit for. It will never be a good thing.

    AI is a technological fire pit, and you are blindly walking into the flames so the other char-grilled victims don’t leave you behind. Let me put out the damn fire.

    • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      When you realize later that the world has left you behind, I want you to think back on this nonsense you posted.

      • Susaga@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        I said this stuff about crypto. I say the same things to the same people with the same confidence. Why should it end any different?

        • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Because this is new tech. Not a Ponzi scheme.

          Seems you’re still struggling to adequately assess emerging technology.

          • Susaga@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            It’s the same people picking up new technology and telling else to get on board or be left behind. People with a good understanding of technology and society point out the obvious flaws. Then everyone who jumped on the bandwagon starts calling everyone who didn’t jump with them a Luddite who is going to be left behind.

            Meanwhile, you have people stealing the work from artists without compensation. You have a rampant misuse of computing power to meet the needs of the new technology. You have features forced on people who want nothing to do with it. You have countless people using the technology to get a cheap cash-grab, then hopping on to do it again. You have people using the technology to commit legitimate crimes, using the slow speed of legal definitions to get away with it.

            This is nothing new. We’ve been here before. I’d like to move on.