If someone spreads poison on your street to kill the strays and mutts (yes, that’s a thing that happens) and it kills your dog, would you like someone to tell you “that’s not sad, that’s literally what poison is for”?
Using a tool for its intended use has zero relation to it being sad.
That would be the first step to addressing the actual issues: Who will advance the field, assuming that generative AI will always be limited to copying instead of innovating? What will be the place in society for the people that lose their job due to these changes? etc.
And I wish people on HN would steel man arguments and not assume intentions in others, but here we are. There was no “appeal to emotion”, veiled or otherwise. The example used harming dogs because hopefully most¹ of us can agree that’s repulsive and bad.
Everything else you’re saying has nothing to do with the point. AI isn’t the point (hint: that’s why I didn’t mention it), the point is spelled out in plain English at the end of the comment:
> Using a tool for its intended use has zero relation to it being sad.
¹ I promise you that qualifier is necessary. I’ve seen some vile opinions on HN.
Why do you need to invoke an image of something widely considered repulsive to strengthen your point against something much more nuanced/controversial?
What's your problem with emotion?
Yes, I agree. That was not what I was doing.