Debatable.
Many of the vocal critics claiming AI will make us all dumb and is terrible go "I have two Max subscriptions myself.." at some point in the discussion.
Many of the vocal critics claiming AI will make us all dumb and is terrible go "I have two Max subscriptions myself.." at some point in the discussion.
I mean, to make a terribly bad analogy, i don't immediately discount the bad experiences of soldiers in regards to killing people, or of addicts in regards to drug abuse.
Because the people doing that dismissing are being dishonest. Their goal is to attack and discredit their enemy, period. Critical testimony from a user has some vague similarities to hypocrisy, so can be twisted for propaganda purposes and portrayed as hypocrisy.
Because if you’re paying voluntarily for a tool that you don’t need, you have agency to remove your “suffering” by canceling your subscription and not use it! So the “suffer” complaint in those instances can be dismissed.
All people i know around me who use LLMs and have subscriptions are forced upon them by their employers. But even for "willing" users, questions of addiction come into play.
This is such a moving goalpost anyways. If someone is a prominent AI critic and doesn't regularly use the tools, that becomes the main line of attack. But the second they get a subscription ALL their criticism is cancelled a priori.
Here I'm pointing out that often it seems the usefulness outweighs the negative sentiment as even many vocal critics seem to use the tool.
As for dismissing supposed first hand experiences of suffering, I see none here. The critics often argue on other's behalf.
It seems to me that more people express a negative opinion than are ready to forego the convenience.
Maybe not unlike climate action, where you will see strong agreement ideologically, but little tolerance for personal inconvenience.