We should have law that any business that wants to make money selling prepared meals must ensure that a person can live sustainably off any individual meal. Food is made as addictive as possible without any concern for whether it is still food. This goes bad places.
See, you are arguing from your feelings. You are assuming that anyone who criticizes your position necessarily has a bunch of other qualities. You’re arguing against a voice in your head, not me. I haven’t used AI in months. You don’t know a damn thing about me, but your arguments are suddenly all about me. As though the things I do and think have any bearing on the validity of my claims. As though you can just ad hominem yourself out of this situation. Why not call me a loser too? That’ll do it.
I don’t need to defend AI. I don’t have to have a position on AI. My position here is that if readers genuinely give a fuck about, for example, water usage, then their behaviour would be different on this other issue. The moment AI leaves their head, they stop giving even a single fuck about water usage. I am demonstrating that the argument being presented is facile. Deeper than that, I am demonstrating that people are reacting without thought, reflexively, without comprehending their own actions. It is a moral panic and that is how I am engaging with it.
imagine calling people addicts to meat while you refuse to give up AI.
So you think it’s strange to address the more damaging behaviour with higher priority. Why is that?
And why do you give a pass to people complaining about water usage and climate effects with the flesh of vulnerable individuals still rotting between their teeth while meanwhile condemning the same of people using AI? As an informed advocate for saving the world, you are no doubt aware that animal consumption is by orders of magnitude the more significant issue. But either way, surely the consistent position is that both are harmful, and the greatest improvements lie in reducing animal consumption; reducing AI usage cannot make a fraction of the difference.
“I’m not a Luddite, you’re a loser!” Nice. You sure showed him that your critical analysis skills are superior. If you’re not a Luddite, then why do you see yourself in that comment? You’re self-identifying at this point.
I notice that it presents sites with the same editorial body as separate cases, such as piefed.ca and lemmy.ca. Perhaps it would make sense and potentially improve readability to collapse any cases that have the same in and out arcs as each other. (So, all the cases that have no blocks and only block lemmygrad as one collapsed entry, for example.)
Being anti-anti something is being pro-something.
Blatantly reductive. “Anti anti AI mob” means to be against the mob that is against AI, not to be for AI. Regardless of whether or not AI is a net harm, moral panics certainly are. You can oppose the moral panic while being for, against, or neutral towards AI generally.
If you need to fuck around and misrepresent your opponents’ arguments, you’re not doing it right.
Normal people couldn’t figure out the “mail merge” function of their 1980-era word processor, and haven’t figured it out since.