[yubblegum]

> AI should be a formidable booster for learning if used properly.

A premature technology, known to be potentially harmful in its current state of development and established guidelines as to its effective use, is pushed by powerful and wealthy elite down the throat of society.

These same forces (and their unwitting helpers in the unmoneyed public) also wish to deflect with useless argumentation over "AI good" "AI bad".

The debate that we should have had: Is this tech actually mature enough for pervasive use in society.

Instead we get these entirely useless back and forths with anecdotal "works for me!" and "sucks for me!".

[yodsanklai]

> is pushed by powerful and wealthy elite down the throat of society.

Adoption has been exponential. We don't need to be AI to be pushed down the throat. People use it because it works and it's useful to them.

> The debate that we should have had: Is this tech actually mature enough for pervasive use in society.

It's too late for this debate because this tech is already pervasively used, and there's no coming back. It's part of our lives.

What we need to do is understand the risks and adapt, probably regulate, educate. So we can get the best of this tech, and mitigate its risks.

[yubblegum]

It is no "too late" about AI right now. The only people who stand to 'suffer' in anyway from putting on the breaks and doing a comprehensive review of +/-s are the moneyed classes who have bet the house on this tech.

We know this tech as it is now is harming society. We also know that most of the people who are principally pushing it will be fairly immune to (or certainly are in a position to mitigate) its detrimental effects.