> You, yourself, are ganging up on commenter and painting people with broad strokes.
No need to complain about "not being allowed to have a dissenting opinion" and then complain about people disagreeing with you. That's not what "ganging up" means. If we're concerned about the HN guidelines, maybe also avoid complaining about downvotes.
You don't need to define my position or my definitions, I said what I said and meant it as such based on a specific comment in this thread you authored.
I'm not saying that AI is like those things but that as society tallies the cost-to-benefit ratio public opinion on AI trends closer and closer to negative; most people are realising that ripping a big old hole in our social fabric isn't quite worth faster emails. I agree the productivity gains are huge but aren't equaly distributed across industries (or even employees even within the same industry).
Of course you're open to your opinion but as with most things whether not people share it will continue to change over time. I personally hope expressing thoughts like you did becomes unacceptable in the short to medium term, no offence.
AI can and has already shown to be really helpful in emerging medicines and medical break throughs. Should we just throw that out with everything else based on the argument of the article that it is annoying that people are hyped about a new technology?
The tally of society hasn't been set and I would urge you to understand that the opinions online formed in echo chambers don't represent the majority.
I agree with your statement in isolation but it doesn't describe why I wrote what I did. The point of listing out the horrible things is that there are many things most people agree are horrible and won't entertain conversation about them in interest of giving room to dissenting voices. So, complaining about how a "gang of commentors" wouldn't let you express your opinions without them pushing back isn't a meaningful complaint.
> AI can and has already shown to be really helpful in emerging medicines and medical break throughs.
That's great! I'm not opposed to this and I think you'll find that most other commentors "ganging up" against you aren't either. But I think you'll also find that tools such as coding harnesses and image generation systems don't quite qualify as medicine. Nor does the use of AI in medicine have major social repurcussions.
> opinions online formed in echo chambers don't represent the majority.
Right back at ya buddy :)
It's interesting that you prop up benefits but fail to address the harms of AI. Is it that you think there are none? Or do you not care because they don't affect you?