But people can't separate their emotions from the "reality". The reality is, this technology has strengths and limitations. It has benefits and it has negative consequences. We can and will discuss all of that. But many people aren't operating from a detached analytical viewpoint. They're operating from an emotional, self-interested, defensive stance. And granted, there are just as many people operating from a utopian, rose tinted, self-serving, evangelical position.

In the end, the technology will get used where appropriate. And more importantly many of its weaknesses will be overcome and replaced by new challenges.

It's just a bit tiring to hear the same denouncements repeated over and over. Everyone knows them all by heart now. They're not wrong, they're just not helpful or accomplishing anything. The technology marches forward and will develop naturally. If you personally don't want to use it, then don't.

▲

cj 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

> They're not wrong, they're just not helpful or accomplishing anything.

I think what it accomplishes is developing a shared understanding of the pros/cons of the tech, the risks associated, how we should mitigate those risks, where the tech is appropriate vs. not appropriate, etc.

It feels very dismissive to say that these conversations aren't worth having. Or that we're thinking about these things too much.

I get that it's tiring, especially in the HN echo chamber. But the conversations are still worth having IMO.

	▲	quantummagic 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		There are conversations worth having. But it feels very dismissive of the obvious power of the technology to constantly focus, in an unbalanced way, on the challenges. People are biased heavily by irrational emotion, on both sides of the debate. It's all just getting a little tedious. I'm all for rational discourse and debate, but it's hard to find through all the vitriol and contempt.