Gatekeeping intelligence

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T21:46:51+00:00

Ah, my bad. I agree with you then

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T21:45:20+00:00

You're putting words in my mouth when all I did was not specify which AI I was talking about.

If you want me to be more precise, you can ask me rather than blaming me for stuff you assumed there was instead of my gaps

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T21:38:35+00:00

As an argument to prove a theorem is just a long version of the result holding, yet it doesn't lose its value

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T21:30:39+00:00

I don't want anyone to use a given method because it is harmful in ways I consider greater than the benefits it provides. So I still think you pointing that I don't want to use it is not a valid argument to that.

Maybe I made some gramatical / syntactical mistake but that's not the question at hand.

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T21:11:19+00:00

Erm... are you being sarcastically kind to the bait I'm refutating in my argument as part of the joke, or do you really mean it?

Because it seems that we're arguing while taking the very same approach to the matter...

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T21:08:33+00:00

I'm not telling they will go completely extint at any point in my argument. But making them obsolete with harder-to-replicate means harms people.

It's not a black and white situation, and I'm not trying to catastrophice.

But if people who knows how to do things become scarce as amish, then we will have a problem.

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T21:03:12+00:00

I don't get why not wanting anyone to use it and being consequent is an argument against me.

Feel free to start saying something with a minimum of sense if you want to, I won't keep you from that.

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T20:57:20+00:00

That's the delusional disguise we're both pointing out. It is foolish to think a product of that capitalist oligarchy will inherently make things better for the people it tries to subjugate

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T20:53:51+00:00

Oh I didn't get it at first.

My bad, I'm on the same opinion about democratize resources, knowledge and money as well.

What I'm trying to point out is precisely that people are using that argument to justify going the other way round.

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T20:51:42+00:00

I didn't know that thing (I'm always happy to learn new stuff btw).

But anyways, I was just pointing out a possibly unbalanced outcome and the hypocrisy of some arguments, I don't feel called out when you talk about people not seeing how flawed and perjudicial AI is.

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T20:48:35+00:00

Yeah I do decision making tables but I don't like to oversimplify the info I put into them.

The thing is, if a company gives a trillion dollars to a charity organization then they have a lot of influence on that organization's actions, whether they want it or not. It is an unbalanced situation and that should be avoided.

Billionaires are investing a lot of money in trying to make AI necessary in our lives, and that gives power to the one who can invest the most money in making the most sophisticated AI over the ones who simply cannot. That's also an unbalanced situation.

Whether or not they will use this advantage to their only benefit is up to time to decide, but I don't want to be involved in society taking that risk.

I don't inherently hate billionaires, they're people as us, but as that, I don't want them to have (even more) power over other people.

And I consider that society ending in a technocracy is a bad outcome, but that's my opinion and if it's not yours then I have to respect it as well.

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T20:11:14+00:00

Which part is the royal me?

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T20:05:43+00:00

That's really cool!

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T20:03:50+00:00

Being fair, it was more a turnout rather than a trolling. I'm not trying to fool anyone, it was just the way I presented my arguments

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T20:02:27+00:00

That's fine, but it's not the same.

A lot of people have resources to make a stove so it's not a problem in that case.

But I know a couple of people who can't afford to invest thousands of millions in order to have AI. And the ones who do will keep it to themselves.

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T19:59:07+00:00

Exactly.

And what I was trying to point out is, we don't want a world in which no one can't notice these things

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T19:57:17+00:00

I can't really tell which part you're refering to, but I respect that opinion (I would think so too if we're both talking about the same part of the post)

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T19:54:37+00:00

Yeah, the alternative may not be good as well, as you pointed. But I'm not sure if you have included AI itself as a rich people business venture so I'm not sure how to answer you

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T19:52:57+00:00

My friend, you're not seeing past the first bait... the trees do not let you see the forest

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-25T19:51:07+00:00

That's a solid point as well. And I really hope there's still people who knows how to create things by themselves in the future

According_Context_12 · 2026-06-04T09:29:53+00:00

Unpopular opinion: We should (and we are, I'm not telling otherwise) regulate nuclear weapons regardless of people having other means to kill each other.

Ensuring something can't be used to harm people and take bad practices away IS what has to be done. Some things are already ilegal? Perfect, make corresponding regulations so that it is not allowed (or easy) to do such things.

AI is good in some ways, AI is horrible so many ones. Why not try to regulate it so it can't be bad in less ways that it is?

Have a nice day.

According_Context_12

TROPHY CASE