[jayd16]

I'm not an AI zealot but I think some of these are over blown.

The energy cost is nonsensical unless you pin down a value out vs value in ratio and some would argue the output is highly valuable and the input cost is priced in.

I don't know if it will end up being a concentrated power. It seems like local/open LLMs will still be in the same ballpark. Despite the absurd amounts of money spent so far the moats don't seem that deep.

Baking in bias is a huge problem.

The genie is out of the bottle as far as people using it for bad. Your own usage won't change that.

[bigfishrunning]

The motes are incredibly deep, because the established players are being propped up by VC money. Without that VC money, it's impossible to compete, unless you have a way to sustain losses for an indefinite amount of time.

[latexr]

I’ll say it again:

> You don’t have to agree with any of those. You don’t even have to understand them. But to imply anti-AI arguments “hinge on the idea that technology forces people to be lazy/careless/thoughtless” is at best misinformed.

We can certainly discuss some of those points, but that’s not what is in question here. The OP is suggesting there is only one type of anti-AI argument they are familiar with and that they’d “love” to see something different. But I have to question how true that is considering the myriad of different arguments that exist and how easy they are to find.