I disagree, I think it does a good job of illustrating how reactive and poorly thought out anti-AI positions can be. Not all anti-AI views are like this and not all of them are invalid, but it is definitely a thing that happens; though it mainly seems to be an online thing, the taking any opportunity to try to put it down thing. Typically when AI comes up offline, I see much more mixed takes on it and more openness if I go into details I understand about how it works.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Cool story

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

It is unironically a cool story and the moral of it is that nuance is nearly always more beneficial than reactivity. Reactivity has its place in moments of crisis, in the short-term, but it can't sustain itself without the nuance of plodding organization behind it. And the moment you dig into that plodding nature of organization, the need for nuance becomes self-evident. Because no matter what outcome you want most, or think you want most, the details are not bending so easy and the only way to get them to bend is to pick apart the dynamics of them. Which is why socialism is a science, not only the energy of upset with the existing system. All the rage in the world won't make a firearm hit its mark. Rage alone is impotence and disconnect from political power. But organization alone without motivating energy will struggle to sustain itself when it inevitably encounters obstacles. So both can play their part, provided they work together. Disjointed individualist upset won't change anything though.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 hour ago