[adastra22]

All the Ai companies are taking those concerns seriously though. Every major chat service has guardrails in place that shutdown sessions which appear to be violating such content restrictions.

If your concerns are things like AI psychosis, then I think it is fair to say that the tradeoffs are not yet clear enough to call this. There are benefits and bad consequences for every new technology. Some are a net positive on the balance, others are not. If we outlawed every new technology because someone, somewhere was hurt, nothing would ever be approved for general use.

[Forgeties79]

> All the Ai companies are taking those concerns seriously though.

I do not feel they are but also I was primarily talking about the AI-evangelists who shout people asking these questions down as Luddites.

[adastra22]

That's literally what the Luddites were doing though. It's a reasonable comparison.

[Forgeties79]

Luddite is usually used as an insult based on a misunderstanding of the Luddites. That’s the definition I’m responding to here.

[adastra22]

I would disagree. Luddite, to me, is a negative and pejorative label because history has shown Ned Ludd and his followers to have been a short-sighted, self-sabotaging reactionary movement.

I think the same thing of the precautionary movements today, including the AI skeptic position you are advocating for here. The comparison is valid, and it is negative and pejorative because history is on the side of advancing technology.