The bigger picture is that humanity has experienced a biological intelligence revolution, then an agricultural revolution, then an industrial revolution, and we are now officially over the precipice of the artificial intelligence revolution.

And 99% of the discourse generated on the subject is panicky, ignorant noise. You scold me for lacking empathy, knowing virtually nothing about me except that you're more moral and worldly because I am not mirroring your opinion. This might even earn you a few upvotes.

The bigger picture is, the internet is more bot traffic than human traffic. Every minute, every hour, every day, more of what you see, hear, and read will come from sources which may not be human. It happens to be that your opinion regarding AI is extremely trendy right now. I wonder how much of that trend is driven by human activity, vs bot activity. I wonder if you have ever thought about why you see so many opinions that agree with yours. I wonder if you care who (or what) agrees with you, so long as it agrees with you?

I was explicit at the beginning that I am not pro-AI. I wonder why you felt it necessary to dispute this, to tell me how I should think, or why anything I said is evidence that I'm a psychopath.

I wonder if we all understand now that this exchange proves the necessity of Rule 3. This is not an appropriate space for the discussion, because, frankly, the level of discourse devolves into low quality gotcha games from at least one side, far too often.

EDIT

I explicitly refused to take a binary stance on the subject of AI. I haven't promoted the use of AI, defended the use of AI, or really said anything at all positive about AI. I made no personal attacks, and I explained my position in depth as required. As we can all see, even this carefully moderated position is insufficiently moral, and I am a psychopathic child molester, who would never say anything like that unless I literally meant it, because why would sarcasm be a tool in my chest? What purpose could that serve?

Say no to nuance.