Good resource there on energy consumption, thanks for sharing. I had heard some things about the energy use being over stated, or over focused on, but that is a very comprehensive outline of exactly the overall impact.

🙄

I’m am no longer engaging with posts that have chosen to change the subject to tone policing. Feel free to actually respond to the topic at hand, but I am not responding to anyone outside of that, such as whether or not I’m discussing the topic appropriately or not.

Is your second paragraph not specifically a response to my argument about AI? The fixation on my argument style is really getting old, and highlights how weak the arguments of the vigorously anti-ai camp are, that they need to change the subject to tone policing, rather than actually debating on the merits. I’m done with that, but feel free to keep trying to change the subject.

What signs would you need to see to believe I am ingesting or contemplating other points of view? I have asked questions, tried to discuss the points that were raised, and even told those I disagree that I appreciate their opinion. For those who have been extra pedantic and focused more on the semantics of the arguments (i.e, you), I have had less patience and curiosity, because those arguments are not really relevant to the actual topic, and more of an ad hominem against me as a person. Overall though, I have not called anyone derogatory names (unlike others in this thread), I have not dismissed someone’s ideas out of hand without providing sources or examples, and I feel I have engaged in a respectful and calm manner. I’m not here to troll anyone, I just would like to discuss the topic I have laid out above. Sorry if my approach has not been what you would have preferred, but to be honest, given that you have not actually contributed to the discussion meaningfully, I frankly don’t give a shit. So I’m done debating my debate style, and if you choose to continue focusing on it, as opposed to the debate topic itself, then I will be removing you from my interactions permanently.

In what way is making a counter point disingenuous? Why do I need to just blindly accept what someone says without any pushback?

Very illuminating. Hopefully you are consistent in your ethics and hate every other tool that capitalists use in our modern society to exploit workers and the environment. Definitely don’t drive anywhere or work in a job that pays out by the hour.

I love when people dismiss your argument without actually addressing it in any way, instead choosing to focus on pedantic logical fallacy classifications in a theoretical and non-specific way that does not actually explain what fallacies you have executed, and where. Good stuff, really convinced me or your side of the argument.

🖕

My point exactly.

K

Why?

If that’s the case, then why did you bring up wikipedia vs encycopedias? You’re losing me bud.

Why is medical research special? Why is that the only place that AI is valid, and not science or engineering or art or anywhere else?

What did people use for knowledge before libraries? Elders, right?

What did people use for retrieving knowledge before AI? Wikipedia/Google. Before that? Libraries.

Again though, why can that use case not be applied other places? Why is medicine special? You seem to have a specific application in mind, so how about you just explain what that is so I can evaluate it on its merits?

It is not apples and oranges. Before people had libraries, they went to the elders for knowledge. It’s very probably that when that happened, some of the elders felt spite towards libraries, because they replaced their roles in society, or diminished them.

Today, AI is doing the same for libraries, albeit with a few minor intermediary phases of the internet as a whole and global searching for information. You used to need to go to the library to read the biography of George Washington. Then someone invented wikipedia. Then someone invented an algorithm that can take sources from Wikipedia and other places and combine them into a coherent natural language response.

So no, not apples and oranges at all, very much the same thing.

I don’t know the specifics, but not sure how that is relevant. Why does the field it’s being applied in make a difference? Is medicine the only field you view as truly impactful and valuable? Or do you really view the down sides as that dramatically terrible that the only possible way those downsides could be justified is by saving a life?

Thanks for the response, I appreciate your perspective. Definitely a reasonable take overall. I very much agree on the regulation side. It is pretty mental how unregulated it has been, especially with some of the projections about the impact that their purveyors claim it will have on society.

My intent was to try to understand why people feel the way they feel. If I disagree with a reason someone has, am I just supposed to be like “oh, ok”, and move on? Is that the proper protocol here if I am supposed to be understanding? Am I not supposed to give any rebuttal to any points whatsoever and just read through the thread without replying? Is that what you would consider a true “understanding” approach?