> Do you hold the position that a thing is bad because it is possible to do harm, or that it is predominantly causing harm?
Mere moments later...
> Even if the current impact of a field is predominantly harmful
So let's just skip the first part then, you conceded it's predominantly harmful. On this we agree.
> it does not stand that the problem is with the what is being attempted.
Well, it's not a logical 1-to-1, no. But I would say if the current impact of a field is predominantly harmful, then revisiting what is being attempted isn't the worst idea.
> Consider healthcare, a few hundred years ago much of healthcare did more harm than good, charlatans and frauds were commonplace. Was that because healthcare itself was a bad thing? Was it a mistake to even go down that path?
If OpenAI and company were still pure research projects, this would hold some amount of water, even if I would still disagree with it. However that exempts the context that OpenAI is actively (and under threat of financial ruin) turning itself into a for-profit business, and is actively selling it's products, as are it's competitors, to firms in the market with the explicit notion of reducing headcount for the same productivity. This doesn't need a citation, look at any AI product marketing and you see a consistent theme is the removal of human labor and/or interaction.