I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the article using the Claude map. It's just deeply funny somehow.
The world is big and complicated. "AI" is the biggest umbrella category we have ever seen in modern civilization. There's nothing inherently wrong with criticizing AI while using AI. There's nothing inherently wrong with criticizing a country while living in that country. There's nothing inherently wrong with criticizing a company while using that company's service. Etc.
"Hypocrisy!" is a favorite accusation of those with the same-but-opposite bias as the one they are calling out. It's the easiest attack to construct, because you can point to anything and omit the complication of reality.
And people are hypocritical! That's part of why it's such an easy thing to claim. But it's also the reason you need a stronger argument than just stating the claim. You need to separate yourself from the endless sea of low-quality internet snipes that rely on simple accusations of hypocrisy.
That's especially the case for incredibly optional things like choosing to generate an AI image or buying from a company that the buyer says is immoral. (I don't include moving from a country in the incredibly optional category.)
I think hypocrisy is perhaps one of the most useful criticisms we have to evaluate others in terms of whether they sincerely hold the beliefs they espouse -- for example, if a politician or entertainer says "Everyone should not do x", maybe that's a sincerely-held belief that we should respect. But if we then find out that politician or entertainer was actually doing x, maybe it's not actually a sincerely-held belief we should respect their views about.
For US readers, like if <Dem or GOP party> said "Politician X is bad for Y reason" but we then find out the accusing party was actually doing Y, is there any stronger indicator about whether their espoused beliefs were at least sincerely-held, regardless of whether we disagreed with the view?
> And people are hypocritical!
"And people are <___>" could be said about most other illegal or frequently-criticized behaviors -- and would especially be the case if the consequences for the other behaviors were only as bad as the "consequences" faced for hypocrisy. But that doesn't mean we should avoid criticizing those other behaviors for that reason.
It's why when I bitch about the UK, I get told if I don't like it why don't I leave.
It's like my dudes fail to grasp to concept of loving something and wanting it to be even better, to solve minor quibbles with it.
People complain about AI in public, use it heavily in private, complain about datacenters in public, slam their fists about usage limits in private.
In short, typical human behavior, want to have their cake and eat it too.
You don’t really have another option unless you want to ostracize yourself from the society you’re trying to change.
Like if I needed some throw away generic art I might use it, so maybe a few times a year. And some searches will give me ai results to read before I can scroll to click wikipedia. But if that cost me anything, required a free login, or even had to scroll past a wiki or research link, I would just keep going to wikipedia.
Specific jobs benefit a lot from AI, but the general population? I still find it questionable if people will benefit or even want to use ai commonly.
If the cost to users is reasonable with that added burden I'll happily pay it. If it is not viable without passing costs on society, then they should not be in business.
"Heavily"? "Complain"? "Slam their fists"? "Want to have their cake and eat it too?"
All in the service of describing how you assume your enemies are. This is beyond the pale for HN. Really petty.
But in reality, there are many many ways to engage in society, some more or less ethical/moral than others, and one is free to criticize individual choices.
Even if we consider something like social media, there is still a range of choices other than fully engaging in social media and rejecting all social media. There are attempts to use it responsible, limiting and curating use to less harmful versions while attempt to get most of the benefit, while still postulating that the overall effect of the average use case of social media is harming society.
It feels a lot like saying that, since it is impossible to live a perfectly ethical/moral life, ethics and morals can be completely ignored without regard for what options one does have available to them.
Point being, you can complain about thing, even if you are forced to interact with said thing.