Aka. "good facts". Too bad "real facts" aren't the alternative of choice for most media/news outlets.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

Kurzgesagt released a much more compelling complaint about AI slop's impacts today: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...

All I hear from Mr. Beast's complaint is that big content creators fear the democratization of content creation, which means content creation won't be pay-to-win as much any more.

I discovered Doctorow via Slashdot back in early 2002 via this article: https://f6ffb3fa-34ce-43c1-939d-77e64deb3c0c.atarimworker.io/story/02/...

Things have changed a lot since then, but not my appreciation for his writing (both fiction and non), for his righteous efforts with civil/digital liberties and activism, and his ability as a writer to convey those and related issues to his audience with impact and style. A true paragon of a human being.

Good observation. Absolutist language reminds me of the evidence I've seen of it being linked to depression, and of my own continuing efforts to vigilantly avoid using it.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fa...
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2F...

Thank you both! I haven't encountered this before, but it's very interesting and relevant.

We're speaking of both AI and the human race, and arguably about sentience in general. Refusing to identify humanity as a tribe in that context is just implicitly saying that human intelligence/consciousness is the only type that exists or matters. That argument boils down to the naturalism fallacy, in group/out group fallacy, and the burden of proof fallacy.

Ad Hom. Classic!

I appreciate your mindset and phrasing as well. I've experienced a lot of suffering in my life, and my antinatalist perspective doesn't usually make my desires aligned with my fellow humans'. That said, I'm keenly aware that my often pessimistic perspectives may just be my own version of the sour grapes perspective, and I could easily be mistaken or just wrong about lots of things. So I suppose I'm on the lookout for others' perspectives and justifications which I could buy into enough to supplant my current ones. That's my primary motivation for posting here.

Posting this sort of thing on Reddit seems pointless, because any time I do, it's ignored or downvoted into oblivion. In that way, I see Reddit as a bit of an echo chamber, but that's true here and elsewhere too. Kialo seemed like an interesting attempt to avoid that, but it also seems overly cumbersome and lacking critical mass.

"Being a human" is in group/out group justification, again rooted in tribalism.

For example, I am also a human. I agree that I would probably prefer an outcome where AI is an ally or a tool. But what if (for a very speculative example) the broligarchs use that tool to capture enough overwhelming power to maintain unilateral authority and an authoritarian dynasty over the rest of the world, occupying island bunker kingdoms and using satellites and cheap drones for remote monitoring and enforcement. I might prefer AI simply succeed humanity instead of being used as a tool to let our 0.0001% keep the rest of us as livestock.

"Blood traitor" is one of the most common, tribalistic responses/justifications offered by the players of pigeon chess, in my experience. It is basically a subjective opinion usually based on fallacies like the appeal to tradition, naturalism, and No True Scotsman.

I'm on board with this, myself, and I've thought this way for decades. It's definitely not a new concept. Greek mythology's Olympians vs. Titans has been around for thousands of years, with countless newer and modern fictional parallels.

It's not something I usually talk about because when discussed outside the context of fiction, most people usually seem to quickly have strong, reactive, tribalistic responses which usually turn into bandwagoning and brigading behaviors which make attempts at productive dialogue frustrating and usually pointless.

There are rare occasions I've seen or had coherent, intelligent conversations on or adjacent to this subject, but I've not yet encountered any such perspectives that offered anything substantial beyond subjective opinion. Most attempts at casual, rational debate were too filled with logical fallacies to be worth the effort of productive discourse, and ended up with mutual exasperation or as instances of pigeon chess.

I personally think the cheerful apocalypse is inevitable, if a different apocalypse doesn't delay or end things first. And so I don't bother with what I see as the often frustrating, pointless discourse, and just do my own thing.

At this point I think it's just a competition between big tech CEOs to see who can get us plebs to pay for the best insult to us. Winner gets a seat on the first Mars rocket.

What if they, just for example, flew a cheap radio transceiver overhead with a balloon. Or a swarm of them?