Why are you putting down a well reasoned reply as being shallow? Isn't that... shallow? Is it because you don't want people to disagree with you or point out flaws in your arguments? Because you seem to take an absolutist black/white approach and disregard any sense of nuanced approach.

▲

collingreen 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I don't have a dog in this fight but I think the counter argument was a terrible straw man. Op said it's too dangerous to put in general hands. Treating that like "protect the incompetent from themselves and punish everyone in the process" is badly twisting the point. A closer oversimplification is "protect the public from the incompetents".

In my mind a direct, good faith rebuttal would address the actual points - either disagree that the worst usage would lead to harm of the public or make a point (like the op tees up) that risking the public is one of worthy tradeoffs of freedom.

▲

tptacek 6 days ago | parent [-]

The original post concluded with the sentence "This is why I am 100% against AI – no compromise." Not "AI is too dangerous for general hands".

	▲	vouaobrasil 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		My arguments are nuanced, but there's nothing saying a final position has to be. Nuanced arguments can lead to a true unilateral position.

▲

vouaobrasil 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I do want people to argue or point out flaws. But presenting a false dichotomy is not a well-reasoned reply.

▲

Karrot_Kream 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

The rebuttal is very simple. I'll try and make it a bit less emotionally charged and clear even if your original opinion did not appear to me to go through the same process:

"While some may use the tool irresponsibly, others will not, and therefore there's no need to restrict the tool. Society shouldn't handicap the majority to accommodate the minority."

You can choose to not engage with this critique but calling it a "false dichotomy" is in poor form. If anything, it makes me feel like you're not willing to entertain disagreement. You state that you want to start a discussion by expressing your opinion but I don't see a discussion here. I observe you expressing your opinion and dismissing criticism of that opinion as false.

▲

pyman 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> even if a minority can use them properly.

Most students today are AI fluent. Most teachers aren't. Students treat AI like Google Search, StackOverflow, GitHub, and every other dev tool.

	▲	mmcclure 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Some students treat AI like those things. Others are effectively a meat proxy for AI. Both ends of the spectrum would call themselves "AI fluent." I don't think the existence of the latter should mean we restrict access to AI for everyone, but I also don't think it's helpful to pretend AI is just this generation's TI-83.