I still don’t think you understand what I’m saying.
Tim Sweeney can say that he is skilled, actually, but 1), I don’t believe him, and 2) his use of AI is disqualifying. He can say “but I do value the craft of making things,” and I can say “no, he doesn’t; here’s the evidence: he uses AI.”
I get what you’re saying. But that’s your thoughts not those presented in the Twitter excerpt, and I’m talking about that excerpt.
Slightly more broadly, yes one can make the point that you are, and it may have been a more interesting exchange on Twitter if it were made from the top.
More broadly, I still have concerns about the nature of “the discourse”, because I just don’t think you’re going to win many hearts and minds with this line of thinking without some change in the framing, by, eg, focusing on the harms and “evils” of AI (with the disqualification of those indifferent to such issues being a natural corollary).
But even then, I fear still that that conversation is being lost, and these sort of ad hominem attacks as we see in the excerpt and even your summary just above of disqualified people are symptom of anti-AI not knowing what to say anymore. I see your point about shaming and all, but I look around the world and honestly think it’s a pipe dream. I hope it works for you, genuinely.
and these sort of ad hominem attacks as we see in the excerpt
But this is ultimately what I’m getting at: this is fine.
You have a period of natural discourse over the exact nature of the is and isn’ts, and at some point a truth is found, and any further disagreement is such you have to recognize is irrational and must simply be squashed.
It’s not a lack of things to say; the people we’re talking to are not listening. Targets like Tim Sweeney, anyway. Audience members actually like it when you dunk on bad people. It’s cathartic. It feels like action.
If I had any criticism for these people, it’s that this action tends not to metastasize into anything. We’ve had decades and decades of discourse over global warming, probably some of it mean, and yet nothing has really happened. Nobody wants to put in the work to bring these polluting companies to heel.
but I look around the world and honestly think it’s a pipe dream.
I don’t necessarily think that anything is going to happen either, but I also don’t think that tempering our tones to be more civil and hyperfactual is helping.
To effect change, you need energy. And stopping people from hurrah-ing so that you can correct them on the nuances of their speech—speech that isn’t even wrong, if I’m being perfectly honest—speech that is only idictable by some fractal of technicalities—stifles that energy. You lose momentum, naturally, by constantly stopping to check your shoe laces.
Anyway, I really don’t mean to drag this out. I don’t think you’re a bad guy or anything, I just see a tone-policing thing happening here that irks me.
In the end, I think we’re more or less in the same page. If you picked up on a tone policing vibe, I think I can see that, but that totally wasn’t where I was coming from. EG, going after all CEOs for being brain washed psychopaths who naturally use AI because they’re psychopathic would have been in line with what I was saying, at least to me.
But no need to drag this out. Appreciate your comments!
I still don’t think you understand what I’m saying.
Tim Sweeney can say that he is skilled, actually, but 1), I don’t believe him, and 2) his use of AI is disqualifying. He can say “but I do value the craft of making things,” and I can say “no, he doesn’t; here’s the evidence: he uses AI.”
I get what you’re saying. But that’s your thoughts not those presented in the Twitter excerpt, and I’m talking about that excerpt.
Slightly more broadly, yes one can make the point that you are, and it may have been a more interesting exchange on Twitter if it were made from the top.
More broadly, I still have concerns about the nature of “the discourse”, because I just don’t think you’re going to win many hearts and minds with this line of thinking without some change in the framing, by, eg, focusing on the harms and “evils” of AI (with the disqualification of those indifferent to such issues being a natural corollary).
But even then, I fear still that that conversation is being lost, and these sort of ad hominem attacks as we see in the excerpt and even your summary just above of disqualified people are symptom of anti-AI not knowing what to say anymore. I see your point about shaming and all, but I look around the world and honestly think it’s a pipe dream. I hope it works for you, genuinely.
But this is ultimately what I’m getting at: this is fine.
You have a period of natural discourse over the exact nature of the is and isn’ts, and at some point a truth is found, and any further disagreement is such you have to recognize is irrational and must simply be squashed.
It’s not a lack of things to say; the people we’re talking to are not listening. Targets like Tim Sweeney, anyway. Audience members actually like it when you dunk on bad people. It’s cathartic. It feels like action.
If I had any criticism for these people, it’s that this action tends not to metastasize into anything. We’ve had decades and decades of discourse over global warming, probably some of it mean, and yet nothing has really happened. Nobody wants to put in the work to bring these polluting companies to heel.
I don’t necessarily think that anything is going to happen either, but I also don’t think that tempering our tones to be more civil and hyperfactual is helping.
To effect change, you need energy. And stopping people from hurrah-ing so that you can correct them on the nuances of their speech—speech that isn’t even wrong, if I’m being perfectly honest—speech that is only idictable by some fractal of technicalities—stifles that energy. You lose momentum, naturally, by constantly stopping to check your shoe laces.
Anyway, I really don’t mean to drag this out. I don’t think you’re a bad guy or anything, I just see a tone-policing thing happening here that irks me.
All good!
In the end, I think we’re more or less in the same page. If you picked up on a tone policing vibe, I think I can see that, but that totally wasn’t where I was coming from. EG, going after all CEOs for being brain washed psychopaths who naturally use AI because they’re psychopathic would have been in line with what I was saying, at least to me.
But no need to drag this out. Appreciate your comments!
Thanks!