|
|
|
|
|
|
by rcxdude
87 days ago
|
|
|
'understanding' is orthogonal to 'judging'. OP may be judging themselves as well, but it's still a judgement. It reads like "I understand why you don't think this is bad', which is a statement that 100% implies the premise that this _is_ bad. (and yeah, the consumer vs creator set of values seems to be a large part of the divide in the attitude to AI. But you must understand that a lot people got into creation because they wanted the thing, not because they wanted to be making the thing) |
|
|
Sort of. "Understanding" in the sense I mean it has an empathetic inflection.
Anyway, I have nothing to gain by defending someone else's statement, so I'll let it rest. They can defend themselves if they feel like it.
> (and yeah, the consumer vs creator set of values seems to be a large part of the divide in the attitude to AI. But you must understand that a lot people got into creation because they wanted the thing, not because they wanted to be making the thing)
This is way more interesting to discuss and yes, I agree a lot of the divide happens there. In particular, I don't think you can be a programmer if you mostly prompt an AI. You're something else, but not a programmer. Does it matter? I don't know. "Programming" as an occupation doesn't have a fundamental right to exist; maybe it'll go the way of the Dodo. I care more about things like AI in art and human communication, in that case I do have a strong stance: the journey is as important as "the thing".
In general I think there's a drive in modern society (not all of it, but powerful parts of it) that wants to turn us into consumers of things. I'm pushing back against that.