> The answer is no.

You don't know that. I don't know about you (and whatever you wrote possibly tells more about yourself than anyone else), but I prefer my positions strong and based on reality, not based on lies (to myself included).

And the environment is far from being the only concern.

You are attacking a straw man. For you, being against GenAI, simply because it happens to be against your beliefs, is necessarily irrational. Please don't do this.

▲

cakealert 4 days ago | parent [-]

> I prefer my positions strong and based on reality, not based on lies (to myself included).

Then you would be the exception, not the rule.

And if you find yourself attached to any ideology, then you are also wrong about yourself. Subscribing to any ideology is by definition lying to yourself.

Being able to place yourself into the shoes of others is something evolution spent 1000s of generations hardwiring into us, I'm very confident in my reading of the situation.

▲

jraph 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Subscribing to any ideology is by definition lying to yourself.

What a bold claim.

An ideology is a set of beliefs, principles or values. Having beliefs, principles or values is not lying to oneself.

Keeping beliefs despite being confronted to pieces of evidence that negate them is.

And yes, of course I'm attached to some ideologies. I assume everybody is, consciously or not.

Also, you might want to double-check what "by definition" means, nothing in the definition of ideology reads "concerns people lying to themselves".

> Then you would be the exception, not the rule.

Citation needed. And if you can't back this up, the claim is just your intuition. A belief. Which is not worth much to us.

▲

cakealert 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Having beliefs, principles or values is not lying to oneself.

The lie is that you adopted "beliefs, principles or values" which cannot ever serve your interests, you have subsumed yourself into something that cannot ever reciprocate. Ideology by definition even alters your perceived interests, a more potent subversion cannot be had (up to now, with potential involuntary neural interfaces on the horizon).

> Citation needed

I will not be providing one, but that you believe one is required is telling. There is no further point to this discussion.

	▲	jraph 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I can't make any sense of your first paragraph. And again, please look up "by definition". > I will not be providing one, but that you believe one is required is telling Telling what? That you have the burden of proof? Suit yourself though. > There is no further point to this discussion. I'm afraid I agree with you here. Good day / good night.