Drag you in to what discussion? The one you engaged in, then refused to give me any reasoning behind? I’m still not sure what your position actually is on the matter because you won’t tell me. Is it entitlement asking someone to explain why they believe something? What the reasoning behind a statement is?
I already accepted your framing that there is no “Anti-AI movement.” Why are you relitigating that?
Then I think you’ve misunderstood my reasoning, or why I’ve repeatedly asked the same question. I’m sorry if I phrased it poorly or wasn’t clearer.
“The point is that calling it an “anti-AI movement”, is like saying there’s an anti shit eating movement.”
This is what I have been arguing against. If you are saying that being against AI is so universal and obvious as to be compared to being against eating shit, then I need a justification for that comparison. Without the reasoning behind the claim, it cannot be accepted.
It seems to me there are only 3 justifications for this claim.
Being against AI is so universal and self-evident it cannot be considered a movement.
A movement requires a structured hierarchy and stated goals, which the proposed “Anti-AI Movement,” does not have.
Being anti-AI doesn’t mean a universal hatred of AI. It is a spectrum between universal admonishment and regulation.
If the point you’re trying to make is the first, it’s specifically why I have been repeatedly asking you to defend the claim, and it’s why I reject the framing.
If the point you’re trying to make is the second, then I already conceded it, and you’re arguing linguistic semantics.
If it is the third point, then you’re claiming that to be “Pro-AI” means to be a universal advocate for AI in all things and all ways, which again I disagree with, even if there are indeed some people who feel that way.
It’s very possible you and I are in agreement on the principles, but simply splitting hairs on terms and titles. Which is what I’ve been trying to discover by asking where you stand on those 2 specific fields.
Drag you in to what discussion? The one you engaged in, then refused to give me any reasoning behind? I’m still not sure what your position actually is on the matter because you won’t tell me. Is it entitlement asking someone to explain why they believe something? What the reasoning behind a statement is?
I already accepted your framing that there is no “Anti-AI movement.” Why are you relitigating that?
BECAUSE THAT WAS MY WHOLE POINT! NOTHING ELSE!
Then I think you’ve misunderstood my reasoning, or why I’ve repeatedly asked the same question. I’m sorry if I phrased it poorly or wasn’t clearer.
“The point is that calling it an “anti-AI movement”, is like saying there’s an anti shit eating movement.”
This is what I have been arguing against. If you are saying that being against AI is so universal and obvious as to be compared to being against eating shit, then I need a justification for that comparison. Without the reasoning behind the claim, it cannot be accepted.
It seems to me there are only 3 justifications for this claim.
Being against AI is so universal and self-evident it cannot be considered a movement.
A movement requires a structured hierarchy and stated goals, which the proposed “Anti-AI Movement,” does not have.
Being anti-AI doesn’t mean a universal hatred of AI. It is a spectrum between universal admonishment and regulation.
If the point you’re trying to make is the first, it’s specifically why I have been repeatedly asking you to defend the claim, and it’s why I reject the framing.
If the point you’re trying to make is the second, then I already conceded it, and you’re arguing linguistic semantics.
If it is the third point, then you’re claiming that to be “Pro-AI” means to be a universal advocate for AI in all things and all ways, which again I disagree with, even if there are indeed some people who feel that way.
It’s very possible you and I are in agreement on the principles, but simply splitting hairs on terms and titles. Which is what I’ve been trying to discover by asking where you stand on those 2 specific fields.