> "immoral technofascist life"

Many people would rather argue about morality and conscience (of our time, of our society) instead of confronting facts and reality. What we see here is a textbook case of that.

▲

tdb7893 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Is there a reason you seem to view conscience and confronting facts as seemingly opposed things? Also it seems to me like morality and conscience seem important to argue about, with facts just being part of that argument.

▲

SpicyLemonZest 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I think that someone interested in discussing facts would not write the phrase "immoral technofascist life". If I took the discussion at face value, I might respond asking for examples of how e.g. Dario Amodei is a "technofascist", but I think we can agree that would be really obtuse of me.

▲

technofastest 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> but I think we can agree that would be really obtuse of me.

I would disagree.

Dario Amodei? You're making it too easy:

- Dario is CEO and Co-Founder of an LLM company ("techno-")

- Said LLM company is working with both public and private security companies

- The policies and actions these organizations are taking, often utilizing the technology provided by said LLM company, reflect that of a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, and the forcible suppression of opposition. ("-fascist")

Public:

https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/19/the-pentagon-says-ai-is-sp...

https://www.ft.com/content/e75e3388-4700-413d-ab67-778410c2d...

Private:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46794365

Wouljya look at all those facts!

	▲	datsci_est_2015 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No see “facts” are what I use to support my worldview, and what you’ve supplied are arguments, and I can discard your arguments through debate, especially because I believe that they’re founded on your feelings (like a silly “conscience”).

▲

tdb7893 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Haha, my experience is people making those sorts of pronouncements will argue literally anything so I definitely wouldn't assume they are uninterested in arguing facts. Though I agree though that arguing with some people is obtuse and you arguing with the original post seems one of those cases.

More my confusion is the person I was responding to complaining about people arguing morality, which seems incredibly important to discuss. Lack of facts obviously makes discussions bad but there's definitely not some dichotomy with discussing morality (at least not with the people I know. My issue has not nearly been as much with people arguing morality, which is often my more productive arguments, and more people with a fundamentally incompatible view on what the facts are).

▲

socialcommenter an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's much easier for someone who blurs the facts to keep a clear conscience because they don't have to acknowledge (to themselves) what they've done.

Someone who's clear-eyed about the facts is much more likely to have a guilty conscience/think someone's actions are unconscionable.

I don't mean to argue either side in this discussion, but both sides might be ignoring the facts here.

▲

johnnyanmac 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> instead of confronting facts and reality.

okay, what are the "facts and reality" here? If you're just going to say "AI is here to stay", then you 1) aren't dealing with the core issues people bring up, and 2) aren't brining facts but defeatism. Where would be if we used that logic for, say, Flash?