You're starting with an assumption that AI is, on the whole, a net positive for society. A lot of people would disagree.

▲

riversflow 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Nuclear bombs and ICBMs aren’t a net positive for society either, but not pursuing them is bad geopolitical strategy.

▲

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

It’s great for society. It may not be working for you, but don’t project that on the rest of the world.

	▲	npinsker 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That’s so far from obvious. The most concerning possibilities for me — like kids not learning how to struggle or problem solve on their own — won’t be resolved for many years.

▲

aspenmartin an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Of course and a lot of people disagree that vaccines work, why does this negate any hard evidence?

▲

jameslars an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Is the hard evidence of AI being a net improvement for society in the room with us now?

▲

rickydroll 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

If I'm in the room, yes. For me, AI is one, is the best handicap accessibility tool I've ever had. At a minimum, speech recognition is a higher quality, and second, it lets me write code again. I'm working on the third benefit, which is it helps me organize, helps my ADHD mind organize large chunks of random information.

If you look around, you'll find the AI has made some significant improvements to medicine and engineering. These improvements get drowned out by the AI Cheerleaders, but they're there.

	▲	jameslars 5 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I like this argument/reasoning more than any I've encountered so far. Thank you! Enabling the disabled is definitely a positive and this is a strong argument for the "pro AI" column.
	▲	bluefirebrand 10 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> helps my ADHD mind organize large chunks of random information. I keep seeing this and I'm pretty envious! You must have a different form of ADHD than I do. For me, trying to use AI to build anything is terrible for my attention, it turns everything into a miserable slog because it's so hands off. I miss getting into flow.

▲

aspenmartin 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Depends, is the net improvement of the internet, electricity, agriculture, steam engine also in the room?

	▲	gensym 19 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I don't understand that this argument. Why does the net improvement of the technologies listed imply that AI will also have a net improvement? Are you just arguing that there's no such thing as technology that is harmful on net?
	▲	nancyminusone 26 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Asbestos is the miracle material it is advertised as. It really is great insulation, and really is absolutely fireproof. Thousands of industrial uses are readily apparent. Despite this, because of its other effects, the cost to clean up and stop using asbestos is greater than the sum total of any benefit from all mined asbestos worldwide. Even a miracle technology can still be a net disaster.

▲

kami23 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am unsure what you mean by hard evidence in the context of AI then, what is the evidence we are negating in your view?

▲

andagar1243 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What is the hard evidence that you speak of?

▲

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

Are you really comparing LLMs to vaccines? Jesus

▲

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

We could have had this same argument about social media 15 years ago before hard evidence showed it's not quite the net benefit to society it was touted as.

▲

vitally3643 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You presume there is hard evidence that AI is good for society. In reality, the inverse is true.

Now you understand why anti-vaxxers ignore evidence. Because it doesn't fit with your worldview and you're too narrow-minded and selfish to consider that your viewpoint might actually be wrong and bad for others.