Thread

1. 0c3ca83 · 1790171699 · focus · HN ↗

   Yes, if the product is seen as bad for the world, it won't sell. But it's pretty bad for people, and I don't know how you'd hide that for the people being harmed.

   1. user43928 · 1790172661 · focus · HN ↗

      Debatable.

      Many of the vocal critics claiming AI will make us all dumb and is terrible go "I have two Max subscriptions myself.." at some point in the discussion.

      1. selfhoster1312 · 1790173267 · focus · HN ↗

         That's a strawman argument. I'm pretty critical of LLMs and i don't use such tools. However, even in the strawman version, why dismiss the experiences of people suffering first hand from those tools?

         I mean, to make a terribly bad analogy, i don't immediately discount the bad experiences of soldiers in regards to killing people, or of addicts in regards to drug abuse.

         1. andsoitis · 1790174135 · focus · HN ↗

            > why dismiss the experiences of people suffering first hand from those tools?

            Because if you’re paying voluntarily for a tool that you don’t need, you have agency to remove your “suffering” by canceling your subscription and not use it! So the “suffer” complaint in those instances can be dismissed.

            1. selfhoster1312 · 1790175099 · focus · HN ↗

               That's like saying you just have to stop being a wage slave for a corporation and suddenly you're free.. but you still have to pay the bills. That's a fallacious argument.

               All people i know around me who use LLMs and have subscriptions are forced upon them by their employers. But even for "willing" users, questions of addiction come into play.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.