Great stuff! I'll have my AI agents listen to them so I don't need to waste my time.

Nobody in their right mind objects to AI applications in medicine, etc. But these are typically not generative AI systems. They are more traditional pattern-recognition systems with a specific area of "expertise".

What I object to is the Generative AI industry, which (as I've written) is fraudulent, immoral and dangerous. It's that industry that people are booing.

I provide a link to my article because it's quicker than repeating the points each time this comes up.

Says who? Also, what part of many supporting links to sources that I provided in the article was unclear?

I'm GenX. Don't have $5M by any means. And while I'm not building the future, I built the future by starting a software development company and running it for 19 years.

Interesting that the only alternative to a car that came to mind was horses. Hundreds of millions of people in well-designed cities get by without cars because of a magical thing called "public transit".

To be fair, I am retired, so I don't need to use AI or worry about a tech role. I have friends who are still working in the tech industry who are forced to use AI and who hate it. If I were younger and were forced to use AI, I would quit the tech industry and do something else.

Nope, I am retired.

My daughter, however, is a recent university graduate and she has a teaching job and doesn't use AI.

I don't have to do that. I live in a decent-sized city, but I don't use AI or social media. It's not like any of those things is necessary to live in society.

Say what you want about the state of social media, but the internet has contributed about as much to the rise in GDP and productivity as industrialization itself

This is the common fallacy many people fall into when deciding if something is good or bad. They assume the only measure of "good" or "bad" is GDP. Whereas in reality, the true measure of good vs. bad should be: Has the Internet improved people's lives? Has it made them happier? Has it made the world less dangerous? If all you care about is GDP, then you make very strange and sometimes awful policy decisions.

Don't be so quick to judge an entire industry

The hallucination part of AI is only one-fourth of my article. Nobody wants to address the other three parts: (1) the fact that Generative AI is based on widespread theft; (2) the fact that the industry exploits vulnerable workers, and (3) the fact that the industry damages the environment and sucks resources away from more productive sectors.

Humans are fraudulent, immoral, and dangerous

I assume you skimmed the article and did not read any of the many, many supporting links to sources that I provided in the article.

The Generative AI industry is greatly magnifying the harms caused by greed. It's not a neutral tool, much as its boosters like to imply. The very foundations of the industry are based on exploitation and theft. Generative AI is therefore the fruit of a poisoned seed and is inherently negative.

No, of course not. But let's not pretend that AI is a net positive.

Electricity was a net positive. Computers were a net positive. The Internet... I think the jury is still out on that one. AI... definitely a net negative because the AI industry is fraudulent, immoral and dangerous.

This tech is something that people are going to have to embrace in order to succeed

Nah. I don't use AI on principle. And I'm doing just fine.

The way Trump is leading the USA to disaster, yep... the future will belong to China.

Tech is not what fixes the problems of today. Tech, in fact, is making problems like inequality and environmental destruction worse, not better.

We need sane politicians who care about real issues and not bullshit cultural war issues, and who have the political will to push through positive change.

Amazing. So residential electricity consumers in the USA are finding out what it's like to live in a third-world country without proper electricity infrastructure. Thanks, AI bros!