pesus

Fair enough, but I wish the blatantly racist comments got the same response. Maybe they get flagged more quickly.

As I am strongly against that as well.

Being non-white isn't a bad thing, that's why.

People born in the country are illegal migrants? That's a first.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

What does this mean? Be specific.

"They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish."

- Markus Allard

Is that so? Instead of throwing a fit and insulting people, you could've just spent 30 seconds googling to see what the party leader himself says:

In a podcast segment about immigration and deportations Allard stated his opinion and said that "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish."

Or is the party leader lying about his own party? How deep does this conspiracy go?

Maybe we can start with not supporting companies that have cofounders that directly financially support ethnic cleansing.

What? That's what the party is in favor of, and the thing you said every single left wing party from the 90s supported. Why can't you back up what you say? Is it because the Democratic Party did not support ethnic cleansing in the 90s?

It's not a "witch hunt" to be against ethnic cleansing and not want to financially support that.

Apparently that's asking too much of people these days, if the not at all suspicious flood of comments defending ethnic cleansing is any indication.

Source that every single left wing party in the 90s wanted to get rid of every single person of a non-white background?

You don't think there's a difference between a founder and a random employee?

It's pretty clear you didn't get beyond the very basics of music production or house music if you think this. I'd love to hear your masterfully produced house track to prove me wrong, though.

Currently, it's the US government, who is very opposed to renewable energy sources and very in favor of data centers/AI.

It wasn't directed at you personally, but I think the fact that you dismiss opposition to data centers/AI as "fears, anxieties, and hardships" [...] "being exploited by demagogues attempting to consolidate their power" does reinforce my point. So does dismissing people's concerns as an "emotional frenzy". Ironically, that applies far more towards what the AI companies are working towards.

Thanks for the response, but unfortunately "common sense" is not a source.

And unfortunately, these aren't actual examples of medical progress being made. AI in some capacity is absolutely going to be helpful for medical research, but I'm still very skeptical LLMs are what is going to do it. I also do not think all the other BS coming with the current LLM wave outweighs the benefits. I think the reaction would be much different if these things weren't conflated, and if the focus of AI was towards things like medical research. As it stands, it comes off more as a coping mechanism / excuse that I do not think is convincing for most people when they see the majority of AI is used for garbage (to put it lightly).

All the technological innovations since humanity has had this characteristic and I don't see why AI would be different.

Then you should have no problem pointing to concrete examples of how it's actually improved life for the average person.

I think it is convenient to put oneself in the non-elite bucket to justify anger at the "true" elites - the ones just above you. This is actually a well studied phenomena and almost all revolutions followed the same pattern. As an example, Soviet revolution was largely coordinated by the intellectual elite by overthrowing the Tsar who was the literal elite.

If you want to describe anyone with any education as an "elite", go ahead, but it's not convincing and is pretty anti-intellectual.

I sure am glad I'm apparently an elite and didn't know it, though! Who knew being an elite means you're barely able to make rent, will never be able to afford having children, have to forgo medical care due to the costs involved, and would be homeless within a few months if you got laid off?

You have multiple comments calling anyone opposed to AI in any way an "educated elite". If you don't accept that framework, stop using it.

None of this changes the fact that average people aren't elites, no matter how much you may try to spin it that way.

And ironically, your comment and views are themselves extremely simplistic. New technology is not inherently progress. Being opposed to specific applications or misuse or consequences of a type of technology is not the same as being broadly anti-technology. A "populist narrative" is an incredibly vague oversimplification, and an ironic thing to complain about in a comment that only serves to spread the pro-elite and anti-human narrative the AI corporations are currently pushing.

OpenAI isn't a convincing source. Of course they're going to blame everything on someone else. They don't want to acknowledge the very real hate for AI that people have. It's also extremely likely that they themselves are involved in the very same thing but to push AI instead.

The current far right government/movement (aka conservatives) is far more in favor of AI than people opposed to them. You seem to be labeling just about everything as the opposite of what it actually is. Are you invested in or working at an AI company?

AI benefits everyone while also benefitting the billionaires - even disproportionately.

Source?

Also, you seem to be (probably intentionally) mixing up who's an elite and who's not. The people controlling and profiting from AI companies and their ilk are elites. The average person who's livelihood is at risk is not an elite, not matter how much you may try to spin it.

Source?

And I suppose that depends on whether I die first from not having access to healthcare after AI takes my job.

If you are trying to take on the hyperscalers why not push for UBI vs trying to stop the buildout? Is the former really that much more difficult than the latter?

I'm really not trying to be rude, but have you followed US politics or history at all? Is this a serious question? Yes, it is incomprehensibly harder to fundamentally change the fabric and structure of society, especially in a way that involves giving "free" money to people, than it is to prevent something from being built.

You're right, but that doesn't mean opinions will evolve towards viewing the technology more positively. With AI, it's increasingly the opposite.

We have a higher chance of the world ending than getting UBI in America. This is a country that can't even get basic universal healthcare going. Even if we did somehow get UBI, with who's controlling the country, there's almost no chance it wouldn't be abused to control people.

Losing your job means losing your livelihood and often your life for the vast majority of people.

That's not even getting into any loss of purpose or identity it might cause people. For better or for worse, working and jobs are a major part of the social fabric of society, and it would take a non-insignificant amount of time for that to change. Trying to abruptly shift that would not go well.

It's funny seeing this kind of comment get made over and over. I don't think those regurgitating this line realize that getting "left behind" (whatever that even actually means) is appealing when the direction the future is heading is very unappealing.

If the only consequence is that they're not rewarded, then it seems like it's very fair to categorize it as "no consequences".

Even if you categorize missing out on some bonus or something as a consequence, it pales in comparison to the damage they've done and the lives they've severely disrupted and possibly irreparably damaged by firing people on a whim. (And I consider firing people because you fell for the AI hype / obvious marketing to be a whim)