Disagree strongly - reasonable people can hold different beliefs, and being able to accept that is an important part of being able to discuss issues reasonably, but if someone's actions show the opposite of how they say the world should be for others...

That's especially the case for incredibly optional things like choosing to generate an AI image or buying from a company that the buyer says is immoral. (I don't include moving from a country in the incredibly optional category.)

I think hypocrisy is perhaps one of the most useful criticisms we have to evaluate others in terms of whether they sincerely hold the beliefs they espouse -- for example, if a politician or entertainer says "Everyone should not do x", maybe that's a sincerely-held belief that we should respect. But if we then find out that politician or entertainer was actually doing x, maybe it's not actually a sincerely-held belief we should respect their views about.

For US readers, like if <Dem or GOP party> said "Politician X is bad for Y reason" but we then find out the accusing party was actually doing Y, is there any stronger indicator about whether their espoused beliefs were at least sincerely-held, regardless of whether we disagreed with the view?

> And people are hypocritical!

"And people are <___>" could be said about most other illegal or frequently-criticized behaviors -- and would especially be the case if the consequences for the other behaviors were only as bad as the "consequences" faced for hypocrisy. But that doesn't mean we should avoid criticizing those other behaviors for that reason.

Agree and it has applied to pretty much everything for a long time.

It's why when I bitch about the UK, I get told if I don't like it why don't I leave.

It's like my dudes fail to grasp to concept of loving something and wanting it to be even better, to solve minor quibbles with it.

Bravo, everybody should read this.

It’s like using social media to spread your message about how social media is bad and addictive.

You don’t really have another option unless you want to ostracize yourself from the society you’re trying to change.

Are most people really using it a lot in private? As someone not working in programming, neither I nor 95% of my friends and family purposefully use AI for anything. And the few that do use it mostly use it as a wikipedia replacement.

Like if I needed some throw away generic art I might use it, so maybe a few times a year. And some searches will give me ai results to read before I can scroll to click wikipedia. But if that cost me anything, required a free login, or even had to scroll past a wiki or research link, I would just keep going to wikipedia.

Specific jobs benefit a lot from AI, but the general population? I still find it questionable if people will benefit or even want to use ai commonly.

I'd rather the AI providers bear the cost of the externalities they inflict on the world.

If the cost to users is reasonable with that added burden I'll happily pay it. If it is not viable without passing costs on society, then they should not be in business.

This is such a bizarre image to conjure. It's so extremely self-satisfying for your position - why even go this far?

"Heavily"? "Complain"? "Slam their fists"? "Want to have their cake and eat it too?"

All in the service of describing how you assume your enemies are. This is beyond the pale for HN. Really petty.

That isnt the slam you think it is.

https://truthout.org/art/mister-gotcha/