←back to thread

446 points walterbell | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.527s | source
Show context
BrenBarn ◴[] No.43577934[source]
It's become almost comical to me to read articles like this and wait for the part that, in this example, comes pretty close to the beginning: "This isn’t a rant against AI."

It's not? Why not? It's a "wake-up call", it's a "warning shot", but heaven forbid it's a rant against AI.

To me it's like someone listing off deaths from fentanyl, how it's destroyed families, ruined lives, but then tossing in a disclaimer that "this isn't a rant against fentanyl". In my view, the ways that people use and are drawn into AI usage has all the hallmarks of a spiral into drug addiction. There may be safe ways to use drugs but "distribute them for free to everyone on the internet" is not among them.

replies(12): >>43577939 #>>43577996 #>>43578036 #>>43578046 #>>43578066 #>>43578099 #>>43578125 #>>43578129 #>>43578304 #>>43578770 #>>43579016 #>>43579042 #
dragonwriter ◴[] No.43578066[source]
Because "rant" is irrational, and the author wants to be seen as staking out a rational opposition.

Of course, every ranter wants to be seen that way, and so a protest that something isn't a rant against X is generally a sign that it absolutely is a rant against X that the author is pre-emptively defending.

replies(2): >>43578123 #>>43578782 #
1. YetAnotherNick ◴[] No.43578782[source]
The classic hallmark of rant is picking some study, not reading the methodology etc and making wild conclusion on it. For example for a study it says:

> The study revealed a clear pattern: the more confidence users had in the AI, the less they thought critically

And the study didn't even checked that. They just plotted the correlation between how much user think they rely on AI vs how much effort they think they saved. Isn't it expected to be positive even if they think as critically.

[1]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...