well, you're an AI techbro who thinks that it is possible for us to be "responsible" about genAI when that simply isn't possible. we can safely reject your "different viewpoints" regarding genAI; it's nothing new or insightful. AI is inherently unethical. did you read the article that I linked to?
Sure, you can summarily decide what is possible or not and "safely reject my viewpoint" but I need to read your article... But you know what, I have actually added it to my reading list because I think it's important to read differing views.
again, your "differing views" aren't just "differing views"; they are AI techbro views that are dangerous, so they need to be rejected. will you admit that AI is unethical? yes or no.
Who's the arbiter of what's "dangerous"? Let me guess.
do you not think that generative AI is dangerous?
You referred to "dangerous views".
yes, your AI techbro views are dangerous. you're an AI defender. you naïvely (or incorrectly) believe that generative AI can be used in a "responsible" manner when all use cases for AI have been bad. AI's downsides are doing serious harm. you want AI to be used responsibly when that's not possible.
you shouldn't be the "arbiter of what is 'dangerous'." your "AI folks" shouldn't be arbiters, either. how much do you make a year doing this?
Ahem, it's you that seem to want to be the arbiter of which views are dangerous, not me. I am not calling your views dangerous.
because my views aren't dangerous. you're really fixated on the "dangerous" part of my argument, huh? got nothing else to grab onto? again, will you admit that generative AI has been documented to be unethical? if you want there to be "responsible AI" usage, one would think that you'd address that.
fyi, people have killed themselves because of genAI. genAI imagery is aiding in the proliferation of far-right memes and misinformation campaigns. genAI is putting people out of work. data centers for generative AI have polluted the drinking water in neighborhoods in GA. AI runs via unethical means.