I didn’t say equally bad. I said AI is actually less bad then things like bruning oil.
I also said the impact of my use of AI is outweighed by one airline flight.
You have yet to even respond to my points because you know they are correct. While I have countered nearly all of yours. So maybe you really need a robot to think for you, cause you clearly can’t think on your own.
You’re clearly ignoring what I’ve read. You haven’t countered anything, you just keep saying “we we well other stuff is bad too” or “we we well other stuff is worse”, and I’ve said multiple times that is a fallacy.
Just because other things are bad and some other things, theoretically, are worse (which you have failed to provide evidence for or prove), that doesn’t make AI ok to use.
Would you be ok with me torturing you? No? But murder exists and it’s worse! So torture is ok, right?
You haven’t disproved or rebutted anything, and you’re acting like you won, typical clanker thinking. Sorry you’re not used to being told no you selfish prick.
So in your scenario above, AI is the torture, and taking a plane flight is murder. Hm. If those are equvilent in your head, I think you have issues.
But let’s play your game.
If the purge night were real, and it was common place to murder people all night long. Then a person who only tied people up and say tickled them relentlessly (which is torture) but released them at the end of the night alive would in fact be better than someone who murdered.
Now of course you say, but someone who didn’t even torture would be better. Yes absolutley. But in the real scenario talking about damaging the environment, everyone is damaging it. So there is no option to choose the no damage doing person. That leaves you with choosing the better of two evils.
So a person who stays home and uses AI does less damage then one who takes a flight. Yet you can only focus on the AI case. So much you can’t see anything else. Thus you can’t see the forest because of the trees.
I didn’t say equally bad. I said AI is actually less bad then things like bruning oil. I also said the impact of my use of AI is outweighed by one airline flight. You have yet to even respond to my points because you know they are correct. While I have countered nearly all of yours. So maybe you really need a robot to think for you, cause you clearly can’t think on your own.
You’re clearly ignoring what I’ve read. You haven’t countered anything, you just keep saying “we we well other stuff is bad too” or “we we well other stuff is worse”, and I’ve said multiple times that is a fallacy.
Just because other things are bad and some other things, theoretically, are worse (which you have failed to provide evidence for or prove), that doesn’t make AI ok to use.
Would you be ok with me torturing you? No? But murder exists and it’s worse! So torture is ok, right?
You haven’t disproved or rebutted anything, and you’re acting like you won, typical clanker thinking. Sorry you’re not used to being told no you selfish prick.
So in your scenario above, AI is the torture, and taking a plane flight is murder. Hm. If those are equvilent in your head, I think you have issues. But let’s play your game.
If the purge night were real, and it was common place to murder people all night long. Then a person who only tied people up and say tickled them relentlessly (which is torture) but released them at the end of the night alive would in fact be better than someone who murdered. Now of course you say, but someone who didn’t even torture would be better. Yes absolutley. But in the real scenario talking about damaging the environment, everyone is damaging it. So there is no option to choose the no damage doing person. That leaves you with choosing the better of two evils. So a person who stays home and uses AI does less damage then one who takes a flight. Yet you can only focus on the AI case. So much you can’t see anything else. Thus you can’t see the forest because of the trees.