Your second statement strikes me as using two specific fallacies while also being severely out of touch. First, a moralistic fallacy [1] where you assert what facts "should" be while making a statement about what is or is not needed. Second, a false equivalence fallacy [2] where you imply without explanation that verifiability & not-needing-agreement are equivalent. I'm open to argument, but it seems to me that the two describe independently varying spaces: facts describing the space of reality with agreement describing alignment in the space of conviction. Finally, your overall statement is very strange to hear in the big 2026 when so many important & verifiable facts are so widely & disastrously disagreed upon. See the ongoing USA vaccine safety scare & measles outbreak as an example [3].

Finally, pointing to general & easily-accessible resources in response to a specific question is normally understood to be condescending & a form of insult. I'm not sure if you meant it that way but graciously declining to answer is almost always a better alternative.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy, see paragraph 2.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy#Moralistic_..., the last example specifically names should-is equivalency.

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_resurgence_in_the_Unit...

I hope to hear from you but either way this will be my last reply here.

All that said, I personally unequivocally agree with each of your points. I hope you are channeling this rage not only into comments sections but also into the hard work of tearing down & replacing the many incumbent systems that plagerize, denigrate, steal, oppress, monopolize, waste, & enslave. I certainly am.

Also outcomes are generally not positive or negative in & of themselves: if you could specify who exactly you anticipate will be worse off, it would make your comment much more insightful.

* Excitement from people who are able to make things they could not,

* Fear from people who's livelihoods are threatened,

* Betrayal from artists whose work is being ripped off,

* Alarm from activists looking out for ecosystems & the climate.

To add to an already-difficult challenge: many people, corporations, & governments are pushing extreme greed, hubris, & dehumanization for various reasons.

This piece does an excellent job laying out its recommendations with sensitivity for people of different perspectives & positions. I very much appreciate that.

But they got bought out. By the tech equivalent of private equity. Every community in the USA & in most of the world is aware what happens when the friendly neighborhood business you've supported & relied on sells.

This is an old & systemic capitalistic phenomenon more than it is anything specific to AI. Hopefully someday we can figure out a real solution.

Obviously this results in hallucinations, mistaken implications, & inaccurately assumed context.

I revisited the game a few years ago & was happy to realize I had, in the meantime, grown the necessary patience. Ascending felt great.

If this quote is genuine, as opposed to wistful, it suggests Navalny's evaluation of Russia was that Putin couldn't, in fact, do whatever he wanted there. As best I can tell, such an evaluation would have been pretty damn close to completely inaccurate.

The choice to return to Russia as a catastrophically-failed gamble based on that premise is what makes the most sense to me.

This attribute plus a bit of human tribalism, social echo-chambering, & some motivated reasoning by people with a horse in the race, easily explains the discord I see in rhetoric around AI.

As for "the consequences", those are what are at stake now. They are what the courts & to some extent the people of the USA get to decide.

I'm infuriated to see these capable kids wasting their time working on slop a human never bothered to review before assigning and will probably never bother to grade.

Th power structure that makes up a typical owners-vs-employees company demands that every employee be replacable. Denying raises & paying the cost of churn are vital to maintaining this rule. Ignoring this rule often results in e.g. one longer-tenured engineer becoming irreplacable enough to be able to act insubordinately with impunity.

A bit bleak but that's capitalism for you. Unionization, working at a smaller companies, or at employee-owned cooperatives are all alternatives to this dynamic.

And given the well-documented copycat-killer phenomenon, modeling it similarly to an epidemic is very reasonable.

As for the linked article, it reads too much like AI slop for me to be bothered to analyze any of its specific points. If it's not AI, someone please correct me.

"I think in all of this is implicit the idea of technological determinism, that productivity is power, and if you don't adapt you die. I reject this as an artifact of darwinism and materialism. The world is far more complex and full of grace than we think."

This argument is the one that either makes or breaks the article's feasibility and I fear the author is too optimistic.

What force of nature is it that can possibly hold its own against darwinism?