sometimes, it feels like AI people are incapable of understanding that the concerns we have with this can encompass more than purely productivity and convenience :/
Look, I'm not an AI supporter, but you can't put your head in the sand about things it does well. Even if you don't use it to produce production code, using it for research, prototyping, etc is still incredibly useful.
Attacking individuals rather than discussing the problem concretely is generally not beneficial to useful discussions. I don't get why there is such a us vs them mentality going on. I feel like you're exemplifying the idea of not thinking critically.
>Look I'm not an anti-AI supporter, but you can't put your head in the sand about the environmental and social destruction it causes. Even if you use it to do good it's still incredibly harmful.
We aren't putting our heads in the sand, we're objecting to increasingly frantic pushes on a global scale to force this shit on us all. We're doing harm reduction on every front we can from personal lives to software.
You're not talking about the same thing I am. You're suggesting there are negative externalities from using AI. I generally agree with that take. But I am suggesting AI is generally useful. I am not discussing if it's a net positive for society, but it's very likely a net positive for individuals, especially those who produce code.
I note, neutrally, that it is typically a pattern seen in cases of abusive relationships.
Me personally, I see it a lot when confronting anthropogenic global warming deniers. They tend to hysterically shriek at me that I am a conspiracy theorist, science denier, etc. when of course the truth is that climate denialism is a conspiracy theory, as realistic as Flat Earthers and Young Earth Creationists.
Can the AI people even devise an original argument by themselves or do they always just plagiarize and flip them?