[0xbadcafebee]

The thing I don't like about AI doomerism posts is the intellectual dishonesty. We're going to cure cancers we haven't cured before, using AI. We're going to make better diagnoses faster. Adults will be able to accomplish more tasks due to the reduction in the barrier of specialized knowledge and skill. Kids that grow up today will be able to solve their own problems 100x faster and easier than we do today. Companies will be able to triage, diagnose, and fix issues faster and easier than ever before. We will likely spend less money, do less work, and gain more in goods, services, solutions, and health, than ever before.

AI is going to transform people's lives for the better, because every single solitary advancement in human technology in history has had both benefits and drawbacks. If the only thing you can come up with is drawbacks, you're being willfully ignorant.

[xigoi]

> We're going to cure cancers we haven't cured before

“You’re absolutely right – I applied the invasive treatment to the wrong leg. Would you like me to try again?”

> Kids that grow up today will be able to solve their own problems 100x faster and easier than we do today.

Not if they stop thinking on their own.

> We will likely spend less money

How exactly does the tool that costs hundreds of dollars per month help me spend less money?

[nh23423fefe]

Do you see why this willfully weak nonsense is doomerism?

Your leg example is drawn from human error.

Socrates complained about writing 2500 years ago.

Costs obviously go down.

What point are you making? You are a lazy human.

[xigoi]

> Your leg example is drawn from human error.

At least a human doctor tries to avoid such mistakes because they want to help the patient and could face liability if they do it wrong.

> Socrates complained about writing 2500 years ago.

How is that relevant?

> Costs obviously go down.

They will go way up when the VC investors start demanding their money back.

[maplethorpe]

The author speaks about the benefits of ML image processing algorithms "which have been used in countless industries in numerous settings to solve hard, real world problems". So it doesn't seem fair to paint this person as someone ignoring the benefits completely, as you seem to be doing.

Having said that, expecting writers to devote equal time to the pros and cons of an argument can set up a false equivalence. It tells the reader that the benefits and drawbacks must be somewhat equal, even when they're not.

> If the only thing you can come up with is drawbacks, you're being willfully ignorant.

Does this also go the other way? If you can't come up with any drawbacks, you're being "wilfully ignorant"? You may want to amend your post!

[danaris]

LLMs (what's being hyped up as "AI" by the likes of Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, etc) are not the same category of product as the kind of AI that's going to help cure cancers.

Trying to conflate them, and use that to defend LLMs, is what's intellectually dishonest.

[skydhash]

Unless that is done, it’s merely fiction. While the negative impact of LLM is already here. Slop, aggressive scraping, workflow disruption at scale,…