Anonymous #1 2w

- No societal benefit. - Actively harms global culture. - Reduces jobs for many industries without opening up new ones. - Massively increased political misinformation. - Increases cost of electricity in surrounding areas and takes all drinking water. - Noise causes notable health detriments for surrounding residents. - AI makes corporations unaccountable for decisions made.

5

Anonymous OP 2w

i just don’t think there’s any stopping it. like the best we can hope to do is push it to benefit but i think there’s so much division on it rn that it’s being allowed to run wild. the fact that Anthropic pulled out of a potential government deal shows that we could still help find the place we want it to have in society. but we need to start moving on that bc squabbling about whether is should or shouldn’t when it already does it pointless. it’s here, let’s get a handle on how we utilize it

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

There’s plenty of potential benefits to society it would just need to be properly regulated, like please ai take my job and let’s implement some UBI

1

Anonymous OP 2w

The water stuffs also not a good argument for being anti ai yeah there’s plenty of negatives but it’s a closed loop system the water is being reused in the system to cool, but yeah corporations are obviously going to need some regulations

4

Anonymous #1 2w

Yeah, what I’m saying probably isn’t realistic. But what benefit could it possibly have? I can think of nothing but niche uses that would benefit from AI. And with AI companies pushing for deregulation, we’re never going to get a good framework for a regulated AI industry. There is no world where AI companies are regulated at a federal level. It’s just as unrealistic as my pipe dream that every single datacenter is nuked off the planet.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

The “water stuff” is an excellent argument against AI. I can give you a whole bunch of examples of residents who no longer have water pressure thanks to AI hogging the municipal water supply. The problem is that we’re putting the cart before the horse. UBI needs to happen *before* AI destroys the job market. Otherwise, you’re left unemployed. Even experimental UBI is probably still several decades out policy-wise. You really think we’ll stall AI long enough?

1

Anonymous OP 2w

in a perfect world maybe, we are going to have to craeate the need for UBI first, and we won’t need it until the jobs are gone

1

Anonymous OP 2w

AI has lots of uses in things like research, data analytics, document creation it’s used for a reason

1

Anonymous #2 2w

Again, niche uses. Things that don’t require the massive datacenters, LLMs, and image generators contaminating our culture, health, and news sphere.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

So, let me get this straight. The way to responsibly use AI is to allow it to put millions of people into poverty for decades so that we can maybe possibly pass UBI sometime in the future and give them a lower middle class income?

1

Anonymous OP 2w

whenever AI gets to a point it is affecting jobs like that, it will be a quick turn around to UBI. the great depression was a lot of mass i’ve changes very quickly that got us out of it, AI will be the same. necessity creates change

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Somehow I don’t think that Republicans or Democrats will go for a socialist policy.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Socialist policies are overwhelmingly popular when explained in a way that doesn’t mention buzzwords used to fear monger

1