It's tricky because like in so many other things, nuance is weaponized against the person using nuance.
A politician presents a carefully considered position? An opponent declares it's impossible to know where they stand.
A broadly harmful thing has some potential value if we just pull back on the harmful part? People all-in will seize upon your acknowledgement of specific value as broad endorsement.
In the AI front, if OpenAI and xAI folds up, and maybe Anthropic gets a big dose of humility, and business leaders finally get a sense for what it can't do, there's a chance for a healthy and useful adoption. Right now the nuance isn't as valuable because it advocates for a scale that no one would be objecting to anyway.
It's also frustrating to engage in such conversations when trying to include nuance invites others to use the idea of a nuanced view to insert some insane, irrelevant argument.
Addendum: Yes we know that you think ml/hexbear/grad are tankies and or .world are a bunch of liberals but it gets old quickly. Try and come up with new material.
This is not the place to start flamewars between Lemmy, Mbin and Piefed.
It's tricky because like in so many other things, nuance is weaponized against the person using nuance.
A politician presents a carefully considered position? An opponent declares it's impossible to know where they stand.
A broadly harmful thing has some potential value if we just pull back on the harmful part? People all-in will seize upon your acknowledgement of specific value as broad endorsement.
In the AI front, if OpenAI and xAI folds up, and maybe Anthropic gets a big dose of humility, and business leaders finally get a sense for what it can't do, there's a chance for a healthy and useful adoption. Right now the nuance isn't as valuable because it advocates for a scale that no one would be objecting to anyway.
It's also frustrating to engage in such conversations when trying to include nuance invites others to use the idea of a nuanced view to insert some insane, irrelevant argument.