> "immoral technofascist life"
Many people would rather argue about morality and conscience (of our time, of our society) instead of confronting facts and reality. What we see here is a textbook case of that.
Many people would rather argue about morality and conscience (of our time, of our society) instead of confronting facts and reality. What we see here is a textbook case of that.
More my confusion is the person I was responding to complaining about people arguing morality, which seems incredibly important to discuss. Lack of facts obviously makes discussions bad but there's definitely not some dichotomy with discussing morality (at least not with the people I know. My issue has not nearly been as much with people arguing morality, which is often my more productive arguments, and more people with a fundamentally incompatible view on what the facts are).
okay, what are the "facts and reality" here? If you're just going to say "AI is here to stay", then you 1) aren't dealing with the core issues people bring up, and 2) aren't brining facts but defeatism. Where would be if we used that logic for, say, Flash?
Someone who's clear-eyed about the facts is much more likely to have a guilty conscience/think someone's actions are unconscionable.
I don't mean to argue either side in this discussion, but both sides might be ignoring the facts here.