[pesus]

> and ignore the stuff you can't be bothered with

If this was actually possible, there would be far less backlash to AI. As it stands, it's being forced into every aspect of our lives without consent. Even if you avoid technology as much as possible (which is a good thing), it's still affecting every aspect of society. Even if you avoid technology altogether, you still live in a society full of people who can't or don't, and you can't escape the consequences of it - such as if the CEOs get their way and eliminate human employment like they have constantly threatened and fantasized about.

[hectdev]

I'm starting to realize this comment section is an echo chamber and dissenting opinions aren't allowed.

[pesus]

People disagreeing with you and discussing something does not mean dissenting opinions aren't allowed. If anything, it proves the opposite.

[hectdev]

no, take a look around. comments are downvoted for not agreeing with the topic, not for lack a validity. You, yourself, are ganging up on commenter and painting people with broad strokes. That is quintessentially a space where dissenting opinions aren't allowed.

[pesus]

My opinions get downvoted all the time. I've seen my own comments fluctuate in real time. Such is the world of online discussion boards.

> You, yourself, are ganging up on commenter and painting people with broad strokes.

No need to complain about "not being allowed to have a dissenting opinion" and then complain about people disagreeing with you. That's not what "ganging up" means. If we're concerned about the HN guidelines, maybe also avoid complaining about downvotes.

[hectdev]

OK but the ones here are of a certain bias to the discussion. It isn't downvote based on merit, it's downvote based on disagreement with where it falls pros/con to the topic. A discussion on the shape of the comment section isn't a complaint on downvotes alone.

You don't need to define my position or my definitions, I said what I said and meant it as such based on a specific comment in this thread you authored.

[civet_java]

I think you'll find that even spaces most open to discussion and dissent will push back on certain topics such genocide, murder, rape, etc. These are things most people would agree are bad.

I'm not saying that AI is like those things but that as society tallies the cost-to-benefit ratio public opinion on AI trends closer and closer to negative; most people are realising that ripping a big old hole in our social fabric isn't quite worth faster emails. I agree the productivity gains are huge but aren't equaly distributed across industries (or even employees even within the same industry).

Of course you're open to your opinion but as with most things whether not people share it will continue to change over time. I personally hope expressing thoughts like you did becomes unacceptable in the short to medium term, no offence.

[hectdev]

Boiling down AI to faster emails and listing out those horrible things and trying to side step it as not equivocating are both really disingenuous arguments.

AI can and has already shown to be really helpful in emerging medicines and medical break throughs. Should we just throw that out with everything else based on the argument of the article that it is annoying that people are hyped about a new technology?

The tally of society hasn't been set and I would urge you to understand that the opinions online formed in echo chambers don't represent the majority.

[civet_java]

> Boiling down AI to faster emails and listing out those horrible things and trying to side step it as not equivocating are both really disingenuous arguments.

I agree with your statement in isolation but it doesn't describe why I wrote what I did. The point of listing out the horrible things is that there are many things most people agree are horrible and won't entertain conversation about them in interest of giving room to dissenting voices. So, complaining about how a "gang of commentors" wouldn't let you express your opinions without them pushing back isn't a meaningful complaint.

> AI can and has already shown to be really helpful in emerging medicines and medical break throughs.

That's great! I'm not opposed to this and I think you'll find that most other commentors "ganging up" against you aren't either. But I think you'll also find that tools such as coding harnesses and image generation systems don't quite qualify as medicine. Nor does the use of AI in medicine have major social repurcussions.

> opinions online formed in echo chambers don't represent the majority.

Right back at ya buddy :)

It's interesting that you prop up benefits but fail to address the harms of AI. Is it that you think there are none? Or do you not care because they don't affect you?