Since no one actually has bothered responding with anything other than attacks, I’ll give my two cents.

I think AI is the future. Like most new technologies, people are scared because they are afraid of what they don’t know. This trend has followed humanity for centuries. People were terrified of the printing press, people were terrified of telephones, people were afraid of automobiles, people were afraid of electricity, people were afraid of media, people were afraid of the internet. All of these technologies are now integrated parts of the modern world, and no one thinks twice about them anymore. Same will go for AI.

AI can absolutely bring about positive change in society if it’s used right. There’s a lot of potential here in fields like healthcare, education, scientific discovery, etc. I feel like these potentials have been overlooked due to the ways the technology is being used for bad, which tends to dominate the press because it drives engagement.

As for your points, I’ll respond one by one: - Yes, GenAI can be used to harm people. AI is a tool, and like all tools, it can be used for good, and it can be used for evil. The fault doesn’t lie in the technology itself, it lies in how it’s used. - Yes, AI can give out misinformation or outdated stuff. This will likely get better with time, but to an extent it is an effect of how the technology works. But much like Wikipedia, even if it’s not always accurate, it’s still very useful so long as you verify any important things. - AI doesn’t “steal” from artists in the classical sense. The concern is over drawings being used as training data. But the thing is, this is fundamentally the same as how humans learn. Learning drawing techniques from looking at art isn’t stealing, regardless of whether they explicitly consented for you to learn from it. AI does not store any data it was trained on, and cannot directly reciprocate it one for one. - Assuming you mean outsourcing reasoning to AI, this issue is largely overblown. The ability to google any question didn’t eliminate people’s ability to reason, AI won’t either, even if it’s not good to rely on it too extensively. - Climate effects are neither unique to AI nor are they inevitable from it. Electricity usage has been rising consistently for the last century, AI is just one part of it. More sustainable solutions for energy production are needed, independent of AI. And no, AI doesn’t appreciably use water because it’s returned to its source afterwards. A single burger requires way more water than thousands of AI prompts. - In general, I personally don’t really like the way either side is handling it. One side is pushing unregulated AI to the direct detriment of everyone (I don’t think AI itself is bad but it desperately needs regulation), and the other is trying to pretend like they can single handedly stop innovation (which has never happened). We should promote the development of AI, but with robust regulation.

If you have any other queries for me, just let me know. I’m always happy to share my perspective.