YOU need to provide the evidence for your truly absurd claims.

In order for you to be right everyone else needs to be wrong.

The capital markets, the investors, the companies, the hundreds of millions of people using it on daily basis, they ALL need to be wrong.

But even if we consider the slopification argument, don't factories produce slop as well? Fast fashion is notorious for producing slop. But at the same time factories also produce are cars, shovels, housing, screws, etc. are they "slop"? How about computers? And other advanced manufacturing? Still slop?

Even if we consider the slopification argument, it isn't strong enough.

The use of AI to produce slop is a non-argument. On the same level of argument that an open internet would produce scams, proliferation of pornography, and gross commercialization/ads. All true, but still a lot of new value was unlocked from n order effects.

The reality is that being human stands independent of that idea.

Thoughts and ideas of course will continue to be the domain of humans, but as curators/extending our intellectual creativity beyond just the mere craft of writing. So even that story, that humans are thinking beings, will continue on for the foreseeable future.

I think we can agree with this. The system that determines the fair distribution of productivity gains today will have to change entirely.

Did we forget "Vote blue no matter who"???

It was often as mundane as disagreeing with ANY democrat politician/their policies.

Sometimes it wasn't even a right-wing voice, but from more Left leaning voices that got banned/ostracized.

It's fast approaching, and the sooner it gets here the sooner the masses turn to a Butlerian Jihad.

Ban AI development?

Surely you're going to buy long Put options with that confidence, right?

But then you'd also be basically betting against the entire tech sector, and really the entire US economy and against the value add of AI. That kind of bet is much more difficult to swallow.

Doing business is very simple, easy, and straightforward, but I suspect in a lot of cases the individual behavioral aspects of the executives get in the way of doing good business.

Direction and leadership is something that these companies never seem to get right.

You're never really wrestling the computer. You're typically wrestling with the design choices and technological debt of decisions that were in hindsight bad ones. And it's always in hindsight, at the time those decision always seem smart.

Like with the rise of frameworks, and abstractions who is actually doing anything with actual computation?

Most of the time it's wasting time learning some bs framework or implementing some other poorly designed system that some engineer that no longer works at the company created. In fact the entire industry is basically just one poorly designed system with technological debt that grows increasingly burdensome year by year.

It's very rarely about actual programming or actual computation or even "engineering". But usually just one giant kludge pile.

There's something incredibly harmful about this kind of mentality.

It's a weird kind of paternalizing, diminutive, and degrading view of common people.

People that are interest in it and are using it on a daily basis see value in it. There are now hundreds of millions of active users that find a lot of value in using it.

The other factor here is the speed of adoption, which I think has seriously taken a lot of people by surprise. Especially those trying this wholesale boycot campaign of AI. For that reason people artificially boycotting this new technology are imo deluded.

If it were advocating for Open source models it would be far more reasonable.

In fact if it's not "vicious" quote it here.

So yes. Vicious.

Your problem is actually with my point, which you didn't address, not really, and instead resort to petty remarks that tries to discredit what's being said.

It's often the last resort.