> It's not useless but it's not good for humanity as a whole.
Ridiculous statement. Is Google also not good for humanity as a whole? Is Internet not good for humanity as a whole? Wikipedia?
Ridiculous statement. Is Google also not good for humanity as a whole? Is Internet not good for humanity as a whole? Wikipedia?
It seems pretty clear to me that culture, politics and relationships are all objectively worse.
Even remote work, I am not completely sure I am happier than when I use to go to the office. I know I am certainly not walking as much as I did when I would go to the office.
Amazon is vastly more efficient than any kind of shopping in the pre-internet days but I can remember shopping being far more fun. Going to a store and finding an item I didn't know I wanted because I didn't know it existed. That experience doesn't exist for me any longer.
Information retrieval has been made vastly more efficient so I instead of spending huge amounts of time at the library, I get that all back in free time. What I would have spent my free time doing though before the internet has largely disappeared.
I think we want to take the internet for granted because the idea that the internet is a long term, giant mistake is unthinkable to the point of almost having a blasphemous quality.
Childhood? Wealth inequality?
It is hard to see how AI as an extension of the internet makes any of this better.
It's a defensible claim I think. Things that people want are not always good for humanity as a whole, therefore things can be useful and also not good for humanity as a whole.
Whether that's true or not, it is a different claim which doesn't fit the way I responded. It does fit the way Libidinalecon responded.