Really depends what the moral objection is. If it's "no machine may speak my glorious tongue", then there's little to be said; if it's "AI is theft", then you can maybe make an argument about hypothetical models trained on public domain text using solar power and reinforced by willing volunteers; if it's "AI is a bubble and I don't want to defraud investors", then you can indeed argue the object-level facts.

▲

ttiurani 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Indeed, facts are part of the moral discussion in ways you outlined. My objection was that just listing some facts/opinions about what AI can do right now is not enough for that discussion.

I wanted to make this point here explicitly because lately I've seen this complete erasure of the moral dimension from AI and tech, and to me that's a very scary development.

	▲	p2detar an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> because lately I've seen this complete erasure of the moral dimension from AI and tech, and to me that's a very scary development. But that is exactly what the "is ought problem" manifests, or? If morals are "oughts", then oughts are goal-dependent, i.e. they depend on personally-defined goals. To you it's scary, to others it is the way it should be.