This very comment is measurably more harmful than any AI criticism that annoys you - someone will read this and assume it's appropriate to accept whatever bullshit Claude generates at face value, with terrible consequences.

In contrast, what harm do those detractors cause? They don't generate as much code per hour?

▲

xvector 4 hours ago | parent [-]

By that logic we should all live in air-filtered bubbles. Anyone denying this is causing harm. After all, people might die if you let them out of their air-filtered bubble!

The "harm" (if you can call it that) is clear, detractors slow the pace of progress with meaningless and incorrect hand-wringing. A lack of progress harms everyone (as evidenced our amazing QoL today compared to any historical lens.)

	▲	arcxi 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> detractors slow the pace of progress Considering our climate, political and economic situation, I'd say not only is slowing the pace of progress not harmful, it's actually imperative for our long-term survival.
	▲	dijit 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		that’s a stretch and taking a measured approach to change is valid
	▲	slopinthebag 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's a pretty poor straw man - the issue is the amount of harm caused, not that there is a potential for some minuscule amount. Also we need detractors because if we race into any technological advance too quickly we may cause unnecessary harm. Not all progress is without harms, and we need to be responsible about implementing it as risk-free as possible.