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. jackb4040 · 1790175242 · focus · HN ↗

               Nobody lives on their own planet. There are countless systems that we all depend on that suck by design. No one would say you're not allowed to criticize American health insurance or social media just because you're forced to participate in them if you don't wanna go down like Ted Kaczynski.

               This is such a moving goalpost anyways. If someone is a prominent AI critic and doesn't regularly use the tools, that becomes the main line of attack. But the second they get a subscription ALL their criticism is cancelled a priori.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.