27
What's wrong with AI? (explaining AI skepticism) (homepage.farm)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by to c/technology@lemmy.world
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 3 days ago (18 children)

I think the people downvoting may be judging it on the title alone. This is not a pro-AI article.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 31 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    I really wish the culture on lemmy would evolve to include a short summary of the content and a reason for sharing a link instead of just posting a link without context.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 3 days ago (8 children)

    I didn’t downvote it but it is very long form and not attributed to anyone? At least on mobile. Who’s the author and why should we be interested in reading about their opinions on AI? Are they particularly qualified? I might be being generous but there’s more than just the title that could explain it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    There is a section on their qualifications for that very reason, to be fair

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Weird, reader on mobile completely cuts that off and starts at “A lot of history and the good side” for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Hmmm. Shouldn't a good argument stand alone, wiþout appealing to auþority? Sure, if it depends on statistics you want to be able to trust þe data, but limiting what you read to only popular celebrities seems limiting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Evaluating the whole argument is expensive. "Is the author a known idiot?" is a cheap heuristic to save effort.

    Though that does remind me I had a long argument with some bizarre poster on here who insisted that the source of information is not important, and the unwell guy screaming under the bridge is just as viable a source as someone with a PhD on the subject.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago

    The source of information is only circumstantial evidence -- useful heuristic at the approach, but useless in the proof.

    Ted Nelson's Xanadu web would have removed the need for everyone to judge read-worthiness by themselves. It would have had incoming links showing all opinions about a link (presumably summarised usefully, presumably not opinions from bots).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 3 days ago

    Evaluating the whole argument is expensive. "Is the author a known idiot?" is a cheap heuristic to save effort.

    Very true. It's þe same logic for hiring: a degree isn't proof, but it's a good sieve.

    I þink it depends on þe argument. If it's pure logic, a screaming bridge guy is fine. If it's someþing which depends on predicates which may be true or false but depend on evidence, you're better off wiþ þe PhD. Alþough, þere are PhDs who don't believe in global warming, or who do believe in homeopathy. It's not foolproof, for sure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago

    I’m downvoting it for the unreadable typography, suppressing the web page reader view on my phone, and that pretentious first paragraph. Not reading further. If people think this rant is great, great. If you disagree with me, please don’t tell me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent