Post

this is the really ineffective head-in-the-sand reaction a lot of folks on Bluesky tend to have if you talk about any harm reduction-based approach to the reality that millions of people are using AI tools today. The current approach to critiquing AI is obviously not working, but they don't care.

Been debating writing my "AI is not going away" article about why people reacting with the "shut it all down" response are making it more difficult for people who want to build better user-empowering AI tools

People just know that "build[ing] better user-empowering AI tools" is just horseshit. That's not what's going to happen and everyone knows it. You guys keep acting like it's impossible to get rid of dangerous technology that hurts people, but we've done it before or you'd be brushing with radium.

I don’t keep acting like that, I’m literally arguing for tactics that are *more* likely to achieve that goal. Bluesky did not get adoption by going on Twitter & shitting on people. Ghost & Buttondown are not getting adoption by telling Substack users they’re scumbags. Engaging with users is *good*.

1 repost10 likes

But you aren't trying to get rid of it. Instead you're promising a non-dangerous version and that doesn't exist. You are putting a sugar coating on a poison pill. No one's saying you have to go yell at AI bros, but you're actively supporting it, and that's different.

that hasn't actually happened tho. radium is still used for radiography, we just don't wear it anymore. lead is the center of a thriving industry, but not for housepaint. asbestos is in fucking microwaves. similarly, llms will continue to power IDEs even if chatgpt is axed

Radium isn’t in clothing because of rational regulations. In 2024, a successful effort by the tech industry to remove multiple tech-regulatory Dems led directly to a Republican majority, which happily abolished all crypto regulation. It’s wildly optimistic to think Congress will regulate AI now.

“Improve containment” is a vague euphemism. What you mean is government regulation. And government regulation of AI is not going to happen without a massive amount of effort here; presently it seems essentially impossible.

A ton of this industry, the sell transformers to everyone industry, will crash and burn. that's true and you're right to say it. it's also true to say that the shit isn't going away

Ok but, regardless of which tactic is actually superior, in what way is the maximalist critique stopping anyone from building these so-called user-empowering AI tools? Also this is conjecture but I think ghost absolutely benefits from people making up rude names for substack users.