[Not loaded yet]
You: “People do not generally intrinsically link moral valence with descriptive statements of utility”
Me: “the entire utilitarian tradition does.”
You: “if an object has even one be beneficial use case it is intrinsically useful!”
Lots of ten dollar words to cover up a simple goalpost move
My argument is pretty simple: “AI has more harmful uses then beneficial uses, and its beneficial uses aren’t very useful, so I would not colloquially describe it as an overall useful tool.”
We don’t need to get all Philosophy 201 about this.
Yes, your argument is a simple set of assertions that are at their absolute strongest, just a statement that you don’t like AI & wish to generalize your intuition in order to give it more weight.
But it’s worthless to anyone who disagrees—& plenty do, by their actions.
May 15, 2025 00:50Again, a lot of ten dollar words for “I disagree because I think AI is useful. And the reason I think it’s useful is because a lot of people use it.”
I think you’re smart enough to see the problem with that argument when phrased straightforwardly.
