[rocgf]

> Let me be more clear: individual programmers are improving AI for its intellectual amusement, but organizations use it for its disruptive powers. Two different groups of people, with a bit of an intersection.

That's clearer, but I still take issue with it. You can say the same about any software project or maybe even most work in general. As software engineers (I assume that's your profession too), we automate things that could have kept hundreds of people employed. There isn't that much different with AI - as long as there is money spent on the problem, there will be people willing to work on it, especially at the forefront of technolgy.

---

I agree with your second point. With that said, climate is way clearer distructive behavior, while also being more of a nuissance, a side effect of growth. AI has enormous potential and could, in the most optimistic outcomes, lead us to a utopia. Obviously, we all know that will not happen.

Also, the reason why AI progress will not be halted - we cannot allow our adversaries take the lead on this. It's really that simple.

[vouaobrasil]

> we automate things that could have kept hundreds of people employed

Well I do agree with that. But I think that should also be re-examined and we should automate less...

[rocgf]

We can't unless the whole world agrees to. It's simply impractical to limit your own progress when you have foreign adversaries not doing the same.

[webmaven]

Note that the adversaries don't have to be foreign. The same dynamics happen within domestic markets unless enforcement is ramped up to constrain the worst actors.