[dowager_dan99]

This is a really negative and insulting comment towards people who are struggling with a very real, very emotional response to AI, and super-concerned about both the real and potential negatives that the rabid boosters won't even acknowledge. You don't have to "play the game" to make an impact, it's valid to try and challenge the math and change the rules too.

[soulofmischief]

> This is a really negative and insulting comment towards people who are struggling with a very real, very emotional response to AI

I disagree that my comment was negative at all. Many of those same people (not all) spend a lot of time making negative comments towards my work in AI, and tossing around authoritarian ideas of restriction in domains they understand like art and literature, while failing to also properly engage with the real issues such as intelligent mass surveillance and increased access to harmful information. They would sooner take these new freedom weapons out of the hands of the people while companies like Palintir and NSO Group continue to use them at scale.

> super-concerned about both the real and potential negatives that the rabid boosters won't even acknowledge

So am I, the difference is I am having a rational and not an emotional response, and I have spent a lot of time deeply understanding machine learning for the last decade in order to be able to have a measured, informed response.

> You don't have to "play the game" to make an impact, it's valid to try and challenge the math and change the rules too

I firmly believe you cannot ethically outlaw math, and this is part of why I have trouble empathizing with those who feel otherwise. People are so quick to support authoritarian power structures the moment it supposedly benefits them or their world view. Meanwhile, the informed are doing what they can to prevent this stuff from being used to surveil and classify humanity, and to find a balance that allows humans to coexist with artificial intelligence.

We are not falling prey to reactionary politics and disinformation, and we are not willing to needlessly expand government overreach and legislate away critical individual freedom in order to achieve our goals.

[spencerflem]

its not outlawing math, its outlawing what companies can sell as a product.

that's like saying that you can't outlaw selling bombs in a store because its "chemistry".

Or even for usage- can we not outlaw shooting someone with a gun because it is "projectile physics"?

Im glad you do oppose Palantir - we're on the same side and I support what you're doing! - but I also think you're leaving the most effective solution on the table by ignoring regulatory options.

[soulofmischief]

We can definitely regulate people's and especially organizations' actions. But a lot of the emotional responses to AI that I encounter are having a different conversation, and many just blindly hate "AI" without even understanding what it is, and want to infringe on the freedoms of individuals to use this groundbreaking technology. They're like the antivaxxers of the digital world, and I encountered many of the same people whenever I worked in the decentralized web space, using the same vague arguments about electricity usage and such.

[spencerflem]

I feel like its less antivaxx, and more the anti nuclear style movement. The antivaxxers are Just Wrong.

But for nuclear - there's certainly good uses for nuclear power but its scary! and powers evil world ending bombs! and if it goes wrong people end up secretly mutated and irradiated and its all so awful and we should shut it down now !!

And to be honest I don't know my own feelings on nuclear power or "good" AI either, but I do get it when people want to Shut it All Down Right Now !! Even if there is a legitimate case for being genuinely useful to real people.