I don't agree; portraying it as an opinion has the risk of continuing to erode the world with moral relativism.

The tech — despite being sometimes impresaive — is objectively inefficient, expensive, and harmful to the environment (excessive use if energy and water for cooling), to the people located near the data centers (by stochastic leeching of coolants to the waterbed IIRC), and the economic harm done to hundreds of millions of people whose data was involuntarily used for training.

▲

Karrot_Kream 2 days ago | parent [-]

For the claim to be objective then I believe it needs objective substance to discuss. I saw none of that. I would like to see numbers, results, or something of that nature. It's fine to have subjective feelings as well but I feel it's important to clarify one's feelings especially because I see online discussion on forums become so heated so quickly which I feel degrades discussion quality.

	▲	rolandog a day ago \| parent [-]
		Let's not shift the burden of proof so irresponsibly. We've all seen the bad faith actors that questioned, for example, studies on the efficacy of wearing masks in reducing chance of transmission of airborne diseases because the study combined wearing masks AND washing hands... Those people would gladly hand wipe without toilet paper to "own the libs" or whatever hate-filled mental gymnastics strokes their ego. With that in mind, let's call things for what they are: there are multiple companies that are salivating at the prospects of being able to make the working class obsolete. There's trillions to be made in their mind. > I would like to see numbers, results, or something of that nature I would like the same thing! So far, we have seen that a very big company that had pledged, IIRC, to remain not-for-profit for the benefit of humanity sold out at the drop of a hat the moment they were able to hint Zombocom levels of possibility to investors.