> Things change, people adapt. Well some of them. The rest just gets old and dies off.
Which, continuing the analogy, is like watching your neighbour be slaughtered and defending the war by saying we’ll be fine because those who won’t be will eventually die. Sure, in a few generations we could be better off, but there are people living right now to think about. Those who dismiss it are the lucky ones who (think they) won’t be affected. But spare some empathy for your fellow human beings, dismissing their plight because they’ll eventually “grow old and die off” is not a solution and could even be labelled as cruel. Surely you’re not expecting them to read your words and go “yeah, they’re right, I’ll just roll over and die”.
> If anything, people will have a lot more time to do artistic things. More than ever probably and possibly at a grander scale that past generations of artists could only dream about.
That’s an unproven utopian ideal with flimsy basis in reality. The owners of the technology think of one thing: personal profit. If humanity can benefit, that’s a side benefit. It’s definitely not something we should take for granted will happen.
> And it's not AIs spreading misinformation but people with an agenda that now use AIs as tools to generate it.
Correct. And they can do so at a much faster rate and higher accuracy than before. That is the issue. Dismissing that is like comparing a machine gun to a hand gun. The principle is the same but one of them is a bigger problem.
They’re a bigger problem because there are more of them and they’re easier to get. Which isn’t a metric that applies here. Analogies seldom map on every metric, they’re a tool for exemplification. In this case it’s like anyone having equal access to either a handgun or machine gun.
Even if the analogy were wrong, that wouldn’t make the point invalid. I know the point I’m making (and presumably so do you). Again, the analogy is for exemplification, it does not alter the original problem.
I don't think shitposts are the same thing as bullets, and choosing machineguns/hanguns as your analogy is a poor exemplification considering you could have instead have chosen an IMO more apt fax machines/email analaogy while making the same underlying point of "...much faster rate and higher accuracy than before..."
Yes, spam is worse with email, but we're still in a better place overall than before in my opinion.
Which, continuing the analogy, is like watching your neighbour be slaughtered and defending the war by saying we’ll be fine because those who won’t be will eventually die. Sure, in a few generations we could be better off, but there are people living right now to think about. Those who dismiss it are the lucky ones who (think they) won’t be affected. But spare some empathy for your fellow human beings, dismissing their plight because they’ll eventually “grow old and die off” is not a solution and could even be labelled as cruel. Surely you’re not expecting them to read your words and go “yeah, they’re right, I’ll just roll over and die”.
> If anything, people will have a lot more time to do artistic things. More than ever probably and possibly at a grander scale that past generations of artists could only dream about.
That’s an unproven utopian ideal with flimsy basis in reality. The owners of the technology think of one thing: personal profit. If humanity can benefit, that’s a side benefit. It’s definitely not something we should take for granted will happen.
> And it's not AIs spreading misinformation but people with an agenda that now use AIs as tools to generate it.
Correct. And they can do so at a much faster rate and higher accuracy than before. That is the issue. Dismissing that is like comparing a machine gun to a hand gun. The principle is the same but one of them is a bigger problem.