[bm3719]

I find these answer options constraining. Most are on a single spectrum of good/bad for each question, ignoring alternatives like resignation, inevitability, indifference, and N/A. For example, someone could think that genAI is the next step towards humanity and machine divergence. Or, maybe they think it's the first step towards man's negation, but that that's somehow a good thing. Basically, the biggest error (among others) is it conflates perception (or prediction) with ethics.

Since the repo for it starts with one giant monster commit, I assume AI is asking these questions, which means I'm wasting my time by even pointing this out, like one would do if they "won" an argument with a Claude session.

That's the kind of question a quiz like this should really ask: When man talks to slop instead of fellow man, what happens to mankind?

[antonvs]

Multiple choice invariably tells you more about the people writing the tests than the people answering them. It reveals their assumptions and biases.

A good one was the response that said tech companies aren’t paying enough attention to “safety”. Safety is not even remotely the real issue: the impact on society is. No interpretation of safety that I’ve seen characterizes it in those terms, but they should. Mass job losses are a safety issue for society, for example.

[sometimes_all]

Seems that they didn't add explicit options for resination/indifference, but there is at least one archetype you get at the end which does fit that mold:

  The Shrug
  patron saint: Matt Levine
  AI is a thing that exists and you regard it with detached amusement, like everything else. It's overhyped, sure, but so is most stuff. You'll use it when it's useful and ignore it when it isn't, and you find the discourse more interesting than the technology. You are unbothered.