It seems AI bros never underwent supervised or unsupervised learning to make good faith arguments. What’s worse, some of these aren’t even actual AI bros but they contribute to the cesspool just because.
To start off with, I’ll say it plainly: No, I haven’t arrived at a solution to this yet myself. But that’s not the point.
Somehow, the idea of opposing its development is viewed as something akin to naïveté. This kind of complacency is exactly what the tech bros pushing for it are banking on. That subtle acceptance is more dangerous than you’d think. This is exactly what happened with social media and multiple recent political events.
Although, both pro and anti-AI individuals tend to have much more naive viewpoints on average than this one.
The pro camp thinks it’ll “automate all the boring tasks and allow people to purse their true interests” or that it’ll render billionaires unnecessary, leading to a more egalitarian society.
Believing in Santa clause is a more sensible and mature viewpoint than this one.
Same goes for the anti-AI camp. Many go “the bubble will burst” or “human art/code will matter that much more in a sea of AI slop”. These are attempts to look away from reality and hope things fix themselves. They won’t. It’s not a “victory” if out of every 100 programmers or artists, 70 are replaced by AI irrespective of its ability, just to save costs, and the other 30 are forced to work with it.
Oh, and not to mention the environmental damage, and simultaneous issues like economical ones and overpopulation, etc. Well, you get the idea.
The subreddit name is quite clearly visible and makes the basic premise of each post quite clear by itself.
It feels like a bunch of teenagers trying to cosplay when they go “polymath this”, “polymath that” every post, and sometimes every sentence.
Why not just discuss your interests instead? What you’ve learnt, what you intend to learn going forward, and your approach to such things.
Strangely not seeing very much of that here.