Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by adrians1 3 hours ago
Of course. Those people back then were stupid and irrational and couldn't see they were wrong.

Today we are much more enlightened and smart, and our convoluted arguments, that sound very smart and somehow reach the same conclusion that the technology must be stopped, are totally right. We're not opposed to AI due to irrational fear and NIMBYism, like those simpletons before.
1 comments
estearum 2 hours ago
Excellent work responding to the argument put in front of you!

You are so rational!

link
adrians1 2 hours ago
We're not much better than our ancestors. We'd like to think we are, because we're much more intelligent and have access to more information.

But we really aren't. We're still driven by irrational sentiments and fears. We hate AI because it's new and feels icky, and will bring change and we don't like change. We would prefer the 2020s to be frozen in time forever and ever (although we're more than happy to benefit from progress that happened before our time, which upended the lives of other people long dead).

So that's it, there's no argument. The only argument is "I hate AI because fuck it", which is much more sincere. I don't need to hear about water or electricity or cognitive decline or any other made up stuff that sounds intellectual.

link
estearum 2 hours ago
I don't hate AI lol. Maybe you should stop making arguments up in your head and, again, address the argument put in front of you.

It's incredibly lazy to group technologies by "were people afraid of this? Yes/No"

You can actually look a bit more closely at the specific technologies being discussed and what we know (now) and knew (then) about them.

Obviously nuclear energy and AI have at least as many differences as they have similarities.

If I'm opposed to drone-based atmospheric deployment of aerosolized anthrax, does that make this technology basically the same as nuclear energy, and therefore my concerns are stupid? Or are there relevant features of the technologies themselves that perhaps matter more than features of people's responses to those technologies?

> I don't need to hear about water or electricity or cognitive decline or any other made up stuff that sounds intellectual.

Again, you're making arguments up in your own head. I didn't talk about any of these things. But now that you mention cognitive decline...

link