The decoder ring is to compare objections to AI with the equivalent for the written word. These seem to be close for common ones like

  aiding and abetting violence: books on the topic since the 5th century BCE
  economic disruption: like the printing press
  copyright theft: printing tech also makes that far easier
  displaces creativity: this was Socrates' objection to reading and writing
  misinformation: both techs turbocharge all info, correct or not
  environmental impact: e.g. deforestation
  amplifies bias: this is a common purpose of writing things down  
  atrophy of skills: Socrates said reading would damage memory skills
  concentration of power: writing was tightly controlled by powerful interests for their leverage and protection

Unless you also want to roll back writing and reading, the starting point for critiques of AI should be the differences in threat between it and writing. A difference in magnitude is a minimum. If you also think that writing was a mistake, I honor your consistency.

▲ JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> decoder ring is to compare objections to AI with the equivalent for the written word

Why? Like, people doing fraud is an instance of the written and spoken word. That doesn’t mean every argument against fraudsters should be leveled against speech.

▲

delichon an hour ago | parent [-]

Writing certainly has been an important tool to fraudsters, as AI is already. Yes, most of the same objections apply to the spoken word. I consider that to be a defense of writing. More, better communication always has pros and cons. I'm one of those who think that they remain a net positive.

	▲	JumpCrisscross an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Writing certainly has been an important tool to fraudsters, as AI is already So has toothpaste. I’m really not seeing the argument for treating AI as writing in general.

▲ 238172 16 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

The load-bearing decoder ring? You are absolutely right, let us delve into it!

AI obviously replaces thinking, as can be seen from your comment. No one will refute this point-by-point nonsense.