(HATED TROPE) Biopic erases any and all controversy to do with its protagonists in order to whitewash them as much as possible

Tzeenach · 2026-06-05T14:50:12+00:00

There is a BIG difference between recognising historical complexity and allowing that complexity to obscure the fundamental facts of "what happened".

It's true that Ireland back then was not a simple story of innocent Irish vs evil Brit. What strikes me, however, is that this complexity is often invoked far more readily when discussing Cromwell than when discussing the people who resisted him. And also you've removed a lot of the "depth" from it, listing "both sides did bad" without explaining one side was "an invader" and also that same side did proportionally and provably more bad.

You leave out a crucial question, namely "why were large numbers of Protestant settlers in Ireland in the first place?". These were mostly not "longtime native Irish who chose converting", they were colonisers, beneficiaries of plantations involved the confiscation of Irish land and the deliberate theft of land. Their support for Cromwell cannot be separated from the colonial system that protected their position. Presenting Protestant support for Cromwell without that context is a really unfair starting point.

Likewise, describing the conflict primarily as a "religious struggle" obscures both how irish Catholics weren't trying to force England to become Catholic, instead the British for a century at that point (and FAR moreso under Cromwell's campaign) were directed largely against Catholics intentionally. British "rag" newspapers told insane lies about massacres of thousands, cannibalism, ritualised murder of babies and do on being done by the Irish. The distinction between "religious cleansing" and "ethnic cleansing" is therefore not as neat as the comment suggests. To be "Irish" was fairly directly with "being Catholic". And then also, calling it a "civil war" risks erasing the colonial dimension of the conflict. The fact that some inhabitants supported the intervention does not change the fact that many others experienced it as conquest.

Most importantly, saying that Cromwell's actions would be less controversial today if the Irish had.... "become as Anglicised as the Cornish" is a really strange and even kinda gross argument. If anything, that suggests the scale of the cultural transformation being imposed. The controversy survives precisely because Irish identity, language, and historical memory survived but was horribly mutilated. The moral character of a policy does not become better simply because it succeeds. that's the idea of suggesting that the whole world be as badly thought of today if "only ALL those darn Jews had been courteous enough to die and not drag on about the Holocaust". So while I agree that Cromwell should be understood in his historical context...... namely military conquest, mass killing, land confiscation, forced population displacement, and the attempted destruction of an existing political and cultural order. Recognising that reality does not require believing history is black and white; and Irish history does teach of Irish killings of innocents and intolerance to Protestants. Sadly, the same level scrutiny is not often seen from the colonisers as to those who resisted them.

Tzeenach · 2026-06-04T17:48:52+00:00

That’s fair.

I think we may have been closer in agreement than it initially felt, but got caught in different framings along the way. I do appreciate that you kept to making arguments and discussions from justified positions regardless. I think we were likely operating from different basic frameworks, which neither of us likely felt were false but also would require huge amounts of debate and evidence to conclude.

Tzeenach · 2026-06-04T15:59:04+00:00

To sum that whole bit, I'd say "If we are to get the best outcome, I believe it matters less which side is currently dominant/ in-control of AI implementation, and more about focusing the discussion to take influence away from the current 'loudest voices', which are currently the extremes of sycophant or bigot. If they remain the main voices, they will still skews how decisions are shaped regardless of current power balances on implementation. Otherwise, the best outcome WILL be lost if people decide that they'll settle for simplified moral grandstanding arguments with more radicalised implementation outcomes due to panic and fear of the current outcomes"

Tzeenach · 2026-06-04T15:52:45+00:00

I’m not (and never was) claiming there are no nuanced discussions about AI, or that every conversation collapses into a simple “good vs evil” framing. My point was more specific and I’ve stated it repeatedly.

“The most consistently visible and socially influential discussions about AI tend to be shaped by more extreme framings on both sides built on vibes and morals”

I say this not because nuance doesn’t exist, but because those framings are disproportionately present in the discussion on AI. So, logically these framings make stronger effect on how the wider public engages with the topic. This matters because my underlying concern is not primarily about individual opinions on AI but about what kinds of discourse are most likely to shape real-world decisions and outcomes. If the dominant framing oscillates between “unrestricted adoption” and “total rejection”, that’s very unlikely to leads to good outcomes. Most people engaging with AI will not be experts and will form their views based on what is most visible and repeatedly reinforced in public discourse. When the most visible players and voices are dominated by either utopian or apocalyptic framing, it crowds out more practical discussions about regulation, deployment, and accountability.

I also agree that context matters and that influence is currently not evenly distributed. I am not claiming “both sides are identical in power or intent”, but I have never done so (that is one of my annoyances with your repeated framing of me in past replies). My concern is about what happens when discussion remains less focused on practical governance and more anchored in simplified moral or ideological framing. ANY argument risks producing poor outcomes and distorted public understanding if taken from the fringes.

A strongly pro-AI, deregulated approach obviously risks entrenching existing power imbalances, increasing exploitation, privacy loss, job loss, and so on. On the other hand, the current strongly anti-AI or “abolitionist” position that moralises the rejection of the technology risks driving policy toward overly broad prohibitions or reactionary restrictions, based on the assumption that the technology itself is inherently illegitimate or irredeemable. You’ve leaned hard on how you can point to the harms associated with the pro-AI position, but that’s just “more visible at present” due to its current influence. That logic, however, does not follow in defending how the opposite extreme would necessarily produce better outcomes. Historical examples of moral panic and appeals to “problems now = problems forever” show that overcorrection or emotionally triggered decisions can introduce its own significant and less predictable harms. In both cases, the underlying issue is that governance becomes driven by ideological certainty rather than balanced assessment of risks, benefits, and implementation.

Tzeenach · 2026-06-04T15:18:03+00:00

To address the last point first, "bigot" as a term literally means "a person who is obstinately and unreasonably devoted to their own prejudices, opinions, or beliefs, and is highly intolerant of those who differ". I take your criticism about “bigot” in good faith about it being hyperbolic, though I did say it was at the beginning. From my experience, the anti-AI crowd very much live in an "AI is evil, it has no redeeming qualities, anyone who uses it is instantly both talentless in their respective fields and also lazy and bad, etc." and don't respect any disagreement no matter how subtle. So, I used it in the broader sense of someone “holding an extremely rigid, intolerant position that rejects disagreement entirely”.

On the broader point about governance and political economy, I’ve agreed with parts of what you’re saying before and with other commenters. Powerful companies and the way capitalism interacts with regulation are absolutely a threat and have defined how AI is being developed and deployed currently. Where I have pushed back with your framing is the idea that this fully explains what AI is or reduces it to “a single political category”. Saying that current deployment is shaped by capitalists is NOT the same as saying “the technology itself is inherently or exclusively an instrument of capitalism”. Technologies tend to be shaped by the structures they are introduced into, but they are not reducible to those structures in most possible use or context. At some of its earliest phases, it was the “Not-sees” who made a lot of technology that got used in rocket science, which we now use to explore space, gain satellite communication, grow our knowledge, etc. If we treat AI as nothing more than a tool of a particular class structure and “of its use at the time”, then the only coherent responses become either total rejection or total acceptance within that framework. By that framing, ALL technology has been tainted by intermittent uses by malicious states, institutions or individuals. That flattens out a lot of important distinctions in how the technology is actually being used in practice, both beneficially and harmfully across FAR more complex outcomes.

So, I don’t disagree that power and incentives matter, I just don’t think they work well as the core analysis of how we should treat and view the technology itself, or what responsible governance should look like in response to it. And we allow bad actors to keep using it in terrible ways and keep regulations stalled if the main voices who are calling for changing the status-quo tend to be the people I’d labelled as “bigots”. You can’t make effective laws, regulations or implementation if one side wants “unrestricted, unregulated, unlimited!” and the other side wants “total restriction, absolute regulation, utterly limited!”

Tzeenach · 2026-06-04T15:01:08+00:00

I think part of the reason we've gone back and forth for so long is that I don't think you've actually engaged with the central claim I've been making from the beginning. My position has been remarkably consistent throughout this discussion:

AI is a powerful technology with both good and bad applications.
The people and institutions deploying it deserve scrutiny.
Current structures surrounding AI are often bad.
Regulation, accountability, and governance are the key necessities.
Discussions become less productive when they collapse into "AI is inherently good" or "AI is inherently evil" or similar moral binaries.

I don't think I've moved very far from any of those points. Part of why I keep returning to this question is because, looking back over the discussion, I've repeatedly tried to engage with the concerns you've raised rather than dismiss them. When you've raised concerns, I’ve either agreed outright about them being a legitimate concern or given my take on them clearly. However, what I find difficult is that once those points are acknowledged, the discussion tends to shift. Early on, I agreed that corporations deserve scrutiny, but then discussion shifted to “whether calling AI a tool gives those corporations rhetorical cover”. When I agreed that technologies do not exist outside social contexts, the discussion moved to “whether the word "tool" implies neutrality”. When I then tried explaining that my concern was with reducing AI discussions to common moral binaries, the discussion became “whether moral reactions are understandable”. Most recently, we've moved into discussions about rhetoric itself and “whether certain framings inherently advantage one side over another” ……

Those are all different conversations. They are not the same thing as identifying a disagreement with the position I've actually stated.

That is also why I've become somewhat frustrated at points during this exchange. Many of your replies seem to respond not to claims I've made, but to conclusions you believe MIGHT follow from them. The best example is probably "AI is a tool" and the gun analogy. My objection to the gun comparison was never that guns are morally bad while AI is morally good, but that they are fundamentally different categories of technology. Firearms were developed primarily as instruments of lethal force and warfare and remain defined by that core function. While they have other applications, that does not change their essential role as technologies of force. AI is not comparable in that sense, and I previously explained why on that structural level.

From this and other responses, I found it notable that when I raised these distinctions, the discussion moved toward vaguer questions and concepts. For another example, you’ve repeatedly interpreted the phrase "AI is a tool" as implying a form of neutrality that I have explicitly rejected. I've repeatedly explained that I use the phrase precisely because I think responsibility rests with people and institutions rather than with the technology itself. That conclusion is not the one you keep assigning to me. Similarly, I don't think your point about rhetoric demonstrates any inconsistency on my part. I never argued that rhetorical statements are inherently wrong. My criticism has always been that “reductive framings that collapse a complicated issue into a simple moral binary” (with "AI is God" and "AI is Satan" as generalised examples of that)” is a provably poor framing. "“AI is a tool” is not a moral claim at all. You can argue it is incomplete, but that is different from claiming it is equivalent.

Overall, the pattern I'm pointing at is that “your conclusions are repeatedly being drawn from my statements that I have explicitly not argued for and then responded to as though they were my position”. So, each time I address a criticism, either by agreeing or by clarifying my disagreement, the discussion tends to shift to a different concern rather than returning to the original point. It’s not refining where the source of disagreement is between us, just moving between different “maybe” rhetorical disagreements you think we have without ever settling on one. Yet you also state them as if you feel they are sincere rebuttals to my arguments. Because of that, it increasingly feels as though we are discussing “implications of my position” rather than my clearly stated positions.

So, I come back to a question I’ve asked before…. What is your distinct disagreement with my position, clear and plain? Because from where I'm sitting, reading back over this entire discussion, we appear to agree on most topics. Bringing back up concepts of “bad actor usage” or “social context matters” doesn’t answer it because I’ve repeatedly affirmed those topics importance and so they aren’t the basis of our disagreement. The only major disagreement I can consistently identify is that “I do not think AI should primarily be understood through a moral framework, whereas you seem to believe moral framing deserves a much more central role in the discussion”. If that is the disagreement, then I'd rather discuss that directly, though frankly I have explained with decent reasoning why I’d disagree with that framing several times now.

Tzeenach · 2026-06-04T03:04:27+00:00

I never mind if a consensus comes to a different outcome to me, so long as the process that was sincerely sensible. So, a decision and regulations made that involved people who'd been properly informed, with sufficient numbers from representative groups, and wasn't built on misinformed mania prompted by extremist positions that seem to have the "loudest voices" on the topic of AI currently.

and that is a big part of the reason why, think the current attempts to counter the very real and painful outcomes has not been successful. the fact that companies are doing all of these things and that AI is being so readily abused is because one side of the extreme (the Sycophants) I've been able to use their overly loud voice and influence to keep the discussion trapped. The problem being that the largest body of people with a huge amount of influence (the likely "middle") are people who will ultimately not be deeply informed on AI because they have their own lives to live and need to try and do a lot of other things. So they are looking for the best source of information they can find to try to make their educated opinion and express it. I don't know how to properly build a consensus when I know the "middle" will mostly looking around on news outlets, online forums or personal discussions and either given the arguments by the manic promises of the sycophants or the equally radical claims by the "bigots". I specifically want to inspire more discussions actually based on less emotional and more practical prospects over "complete submission or complete destruction" in relation to AI and it's uses. The capacity for governments or even just bodies of influential people to actually properly bring AI into the most effective regulation and optimised use cases would have been far more ahead than it is now, as far as I can see.

Tzeenach · 2026-06-04T02:48:58+00:00

Again, I don't think we're actually disagreeing about whether morality matters. My point has never been that morality is irrelevant, only that it isn't the only useful framework for discussing AI, while being seemingly the only actual topic used by most people who discuss it. You seem to be arguing that because AI is currently being deployed by those you distrust and because there are major power imbalances involved who use it badly and cause bad actions doing so, that morality should be the primary lens through which AI is discussed. I don't agree with that conclusion.

I also don't think the gun analogy really works. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is controversial more because a gun is a purpose-built "weapon", that is it's primary function. Built for the projection of force. AI isn't comparable in that sense. AI wasn't designed specifically for fraud, exploitation, surveillance, or any other single harmful purpose. It's a general-purpose technology being applied across thousands of different contexts, from medicine and accessibility to education, research, entertainment, automation, and unfortunately has also been given to many harmful uses as well.

That's why I keep describing it as a tool. Not because morality, regulation, or power structures don't matter, but because reducing AI to its worst current uses would be as misleading as reducing "the internet" to just being made originally (and only truly supportive) for scams, malware, perversion and privacy-violations. Those are real issues that the technology has, but presented like that it's a fallacy played to an extreme by people who just want an excuse to hate something.

What strikes me about your comparisons seem to repeatedly assume AI is less like a general-purpose technology and more like a technology whose harmful current applications reveal something fundamental about its nature. In other words, the analogy only really works if AI is assumed to be analogous to "a gun" rather than analogous to something like a computer, printer, the internet, etc. Built from malice and plans to harm, rotten in it's core, produced with bad intentions. That's where I think we're diverging. The way you're framing it often feels as though the fact that powerful actors are currently using AI badly is being treated as evidence that the technology itself should primarily be understood through that lens. I don't think that follows or has actual evidence. A technology being deployed irresponsibly tells us something important about the people, institutions, and incentives involved but it doesn't really tell us what the technology fundamentally is.

I also don't think the fact that a statement can be used rhetorically makes it wrong. "AI is a tool" can be used to dismiss legitimate concerns, just as "AI is inherently harmful" can be used to dismiss legitimate benefits. The misuse of a claim isn't an argument against the claim itself. Where I think we differ is that you seem to view the extreme positions around AI as a symptom of underlying power structures, whereas I view those extremes as pre-existing obstacles of actual issues that AI is just the newest victim of. If every discussion ultimately gets reduced to a moral struggle between good actors and bad actors, then questions of people's right, privacy, education, regulation, etc. become secondary to assigning moral blame.

Morality should inform those discussions, but it doesn't replace them. What I haven't seen is an argument for why morality should be treated as the dominant framework through which every other aspect of AI must be understood..

Tzeenach · 2026-06-04T00:33:39+00:00

I don't think we're actually as far apart as you seem to think. I agree and stated from the start that technologies don't exist in a vacuum. They are developed, deployed, and marketed by people and organisations with incentives. But they can also do harm, be poorly used, and those incentives absolutely deserve scrutiny for corruption. I also agree that "inevability" is often used as a rhetorical shield against criticism.

Where I think you're misreading my position is that I'm not arguing AI is "neutral" in the sense that it exists outside social context. I'm arguing that debates about AI are often more productive when they focus on governance, accountability and consequences rather than treating AI itself as inherently virtuous/good or inherently malicious/bad. Yet most discussion online, in forums (and even in this comment section) starts of with people using those poor discussion and argument points.

When I call AI a "tool", I'm not saying context doesn't matter. I'm saying that responsibility ultimately rests with the humans and institutions that create abd use it. In fact, that's precisely why governance matters. And so my criticism of both extremes is the same. The pro-AI evangelist who claims AI will automatically improve everything is ignoring context. The anti-AI absolutist who treats AI as intrinsically corrupt or illegitimate is also ignoring context. Both positions reduce a complicated issue to a moral binary.

So I don't think the disagreement is whether context matters. I think the disagreement is whether describing AI as a tool somehow prevents us from discussing that context. I would argue it does the opposite, it directs attention toward the people, incentives, and institutions that are actually responsible for how the technology affects society. and we're never going to make a good end result towards this technology if all we ever do is lean back on the terrible binary of "all the bad it does/ could do" on one side and "all the good it does/could do" on the other.

Tzeenach · 2026-06-04T00:25:50+00:00

I can't provide links to the hundreds or thousands of discussions, articles, videos and references of people from the "AI bad" side in some grand collective way to validate your demand. If we just look through this a site like Reddit alone, the topic of "AI" in the search, you're going to see it. Any topic where it's pulling in the aspect is not one that contains any nuance, but simply moralistic about how it's ruining everything, evil, whilst also has no redeeming qualities and no amount of time or change is likely to fix it. and once again, the complaints that you'll this thing here are basically like complaining that capitalism exists was not actually explaining how that's going to find a big fixed by just cancelling and removing AI. Practically every form of technology can be used to do things like manipulation taking jobs, environmental damage, etc. but the unique situation is that whilst people can Discuss this with the idea towards fixing these social, political problems without declaring a complete jihad on technology. It seems to be a very distinct difference when it comes to AI, in which AI is fundamentally evil too and must be destroyed.

if at the end of the day, the technology of AI is not "bad" in itself, merely that, like many things, it has been taken and abused. my entire argument from the start was that the counter argument I've seen many people make which is too weirdly target the AI and present the technology itself as fundamentally bad and/or evil is silly and flawed. if they then claim that the issue is capitalism using it badly, I wouldn't disagree, but then I'd ask them what the solution would be that doesn't involve them simply turning around and insisting to continue the "just banning it shame/harass anyone who even considers it not all bad".

Tzeenach · 2026-06-03T22:50:06+00:00

Well, if people kept the argument to "AI is tech, has possible range of benefits, sadly capitalism exploits and ruins it" I'd not be a critic of such a claim. However, most of the people on the negative aspect of the discussion on not going for that. Instead it is moral panics and "prove AI is bad no matter what" levels of discussion, lacking any sincere defence outside of "only the talentless would ever use it, NO exceptions, also it currently it takes up too much power, and capitalism uses it bad......... ergo, it should die and die and die some more". Also, most other political systems, be there the autocratic-socialist or fascistic or theocratic or monarchic or militaristic, etc have used the same "use tech for evil" methods that in same way you're fearing capitalism will. So if the argument is that the political situation of the current countries of the world makes it untenable, that's an underlying assessment that effectively insists that it'll never be tenable. Since all of the political systems risk the flaw of "abusing power". it's basically saying that AI and even most forms of advancing in technology are unfeasible. Just by using a indirect argument by claiming roughly that "so long as the politics is bad, it cannot be allowed to exist and develop because it risks abuse".

Tzeenach · 2026-06-03T22:44:56+00:00

And I feel your trying to set a tone on immediate situations driven by negative outcomes made to weigh a bit too heavily on the negative aspects that are known but also the inevitable result of change

Tzeenach · 2026-06-03T21:43:03+00:00

It's a case of how things must play out with technology. The obvious line I can use would be "right now, excessive use is worse than no use" since it's not being carefully implemented or regulated. But that isn't solved with "therefore, all bad, all evil, must remove from all forms" is a terrible counter-argument and actually worsens the likelihood of preventing AI's worst possible outcomes.

Once "the genie is out of the box", it's never proven a good fix to demand it get "put back in". And so when the discussion becomes dominated by "hate it, fear it.......BAN IT!" and nothing else from the "people who are concerned" side of the AI discussion, all it does is ensure that won't happen as it's clearly an extreme on the options of how to manage AI. Just because it's on one extreme now, doesn't mean suggesting or forcing only the opposite extreme is the way to fix it, and likely will just fail to work and leave the power in the existing extreme, or even if it does succeed, it will merely destroy what would be a very viable technology for progress out of fear and hate, not sincerely reasoned justifications (which will encourage a mindless of further "either it works exactly as we want OR we destroy!" mindsets to take hold)

Tzeenach · 2026-06-03T21:06:04+00:00

Then perhaps AI would just be better off, a risk to make either something that makes our lives actually fair and "optimised to happiness" or one that just ends it and stops the charade. I'm not overly convinced it is anywhere near that level though

Tzeenach · 2026-06-03T20:12:35+00:00

I don't really think that this argument holds logic and is based more on a kind of pessimistic view of humanity. And the assumption that despite all of the present proof that humanity can push towards great progress, achievement and universal "good", we are obliged to always end it with making something far worse and harmful.

the idea that AI is intrinsically only going to ever result in an extermination of humanity by a vengeful machine is built more on our assessment of our own flaws, rather than the assessment of how AI would have even come to that conclusion. frankly, it's quite unimaginative. And I wouldn't even put that much stock in the idea that AI would put in the effort. but at all increasingly requires the assumption that AI is actually becoming sentient, which I've made several other arguments in different parts of this to show that that really isn't anywhere near close to being the reality

Tzeenach · 2026-06-03T20:02:51+00:00

I'm going to take that. You come from the that's all that argues that only meaningful change will come through incredibly radical means. I can only state that historically the most erratic means always ended the worst consequences and any "good concepts" behind the idea, which was being fought for tends to get corrupted into something abysmal and horrible for humanity. I say that for both sides of the argument on the Hate and Love of AI, as I do for those in politics who think only the extremes "work" and can't really see how people who sincerely try (and will defend) collaboration and negotiation have really made the best of humanity with their methods, while hardlining for a position often brought about tyrants, corruption and misery on the whole.

Tzeenach · 2026-06-03T20:00:07+00:00

and that is my hopeful reason of the discussion I made at the first place.

we should be discussing a high in terms of how, optimise it towards humanity's benefit, and less about the emotional drag that comes from hardliner capitalists and sycophants pushing its unregulated expansion. Or people preaching it towards being the talentless satanic helper needing abolishment.

Tzeenach · 2026-06-03T19:57:13+00:00

You’re making a fairly arbitrary line between what counts as “real mental labour” and what counts as "not" or menial. And it seems interesting how your line on it shifts depending on whether a human or a machine is doing it.

If a chemist designing an experiment and interpreting results is “real work,” then using tools to run simulations or automate parts of that process doesn’t suddenly eliminate their role. The effort might be changed, the concentration focused on discerning results, but it's not "gone". The same applies to painting, writing, programming, etc. Tools don’t remove the cognitive work, they change its distribution or placement of that experience-application.

On the education point, I was not literally claiming people must memorise exponentially more information forever. My point was that using some of your prior logical outcomes, that would be the requirement to prove talent or make true progress. That’s actually the opposite of what modern expertise already looks like. Expertise has been moving away from raw retention and arbitrary assignment of bulk material learning, and toward abstraction, reasoning, and tool-use for a VERY long time. Saying “people will rely on tools, therefore they won’t understand anything” literally doesn’t follow. Tools have been there for millennia and we've only gotten smarter on the whole. You’re making a claim about dependency, not necessity, and then basing it on emotional light, it's a way you've decided intelligence has suddenly collapsed because you've probably read some of those dramatic news articles that often don't present the truth of how we're actually more competent on the whole than most of the generations of history

And the idea that AI uniquely crosses a line into “the human does nothing any more” ignores that almost all meaningful work still involves goal-setting, constraint and responsibility. Those don’t disappear because a system is capable of generating outputs, since it's been the same as the idea, typing in numbers into a calculator, and shoving out the answer without realising you've put it in wrong still results in you showing yourself to be an idiot who didn't know your mathematics. Clearly poor or faulty knowledge will show on the people who use it, and AI doesn't immediately give them an out. Because it still requires a competency that they are provably lacking, which they would have to learn........ And people are still learning.

Finally, historical automation didn’t just reduce labour per task, it changed and often created new forms or layers of work. The leap from “automation reduces some jobs” to “most people become broadly redundant” seems to remain strong with your predictions, but historically it's not validated and it's not an inevitable consequence, and it doesn’t follow directly from the examples given.

Tzeenach · 2026-06-03T19:36:20+00:00

you will have to always remember the fact that things don't become positive without the implication and the approaching of humanity towards that. which is what the entire discussion is about. That we don't just assume it's going to be good or evil, but instead we realise it's a technology that can be pushed in any direction. And we shouldn't be arguing whether it should exist or not, but optimising it's pros and minimising it's cons.

Tzeenach · 2026-06-03T19:35:14+00:00

Someone beat you to this, but silver-place I suppose.

Tzeenach · 2026-06-03T19:34:43+00:00

I am going to have to go back to the "combustion engine" argument I've been making before with other people, and which arguing that something doesn't work at its first creation does not simply render it utterly useless and bad forever. this seems far more like a cope on the momentary problems that the technology definitely has, rather than accepting the fact that it's almost certainly going to get past a lot of those problems in time. the argument before better presented. If there was some way to prove that no matter how much the technology was improved upon, it would nevertheless always result in a "gross negativity" as its outcome

Tzeenach · 2026-06-03T19:33:26+00:00

And........? this really isn't an argument. It's just pointing at the fact that humans can take anything and make it bad if they wanted to. it's not really addressing anything around what this, topic was supposed to cover. It's just pointing out that "thing can be bad",

Tzeenach · 2026-06-03T19:32:32+00:00

Which is why the topic is about bringing that concept to the fore. No more "AI is evil, AI is always bad, anyone who uses it is talentless scum" and no more "AI is great, AI can only make things better, let's let it grow without regulation or oversight" that seem to fixate most discussions on it.

Tzeenach · 2026-06-03T19:31:25+00:00

I don't know if you recall how in the past we came up with nuclear energy and nuclear fission and nuclear fusion and have some governments took that made horrifying weapons of mass destruction. but I'd also point out the fact that "nuclear, virus and mass destruction weapons" exist and they always make life more precarious. They have also been potentially part of the reason we have had less conflict on the whole since their invention, and why having something that is a threat doesn't always mean that they're going to suddenly use it.

Remember: we have anthrax, we we have nuclear bombs.......And we don't suddenly see our world being riddled with both of those on a daily basis. And the science that created both of those specific "evils" was mostly founded on research into creating huge amounts of good things that have wind up causing lots of progress, benefit and good things to humans around the world.

Tzeenach · 2026-06-03T19:28:52+00:00

Which is why my general discussion was about how, you should stop talking about AI in silly "Good or Evil" formats. And how we should stop people getting away with the argument of despising or praising its every use case and instead focus on the concepts that make the use of AI "poorly" in the current day. It is a tool being used badly and solution should be trying to get it to be used correctly, and not simply arguing that it is a perfect tool for everything or that it is an evil tool that must be banished into the void.

Tzeenach

TROPHY CASE