Breaks community rules, Misinformation / disinformation - this is PRO AI bullshit
I’m guessing that the reporter sees this as trying to sell the view that “AI can create post-scarcity” (even if only in a criti-hype kind of way). The screenshotted comment says “abundant food, energy, housing, labour, etc … are too hard for them right now” (emphasas mine). Maybe that could be read as a temporary condition; that even if it can’t now, one day AI will usher in an era of post-scarcity. Maybe pseudoLit does believe that to be a possibility. Not sure. But it’s not clear that they believe any such thing, nor that they’re trying to sell anyone else on such a view.
So, in short, I don’t think any of this constitutes AI advocacy or mis/disinformation.
I’ll admit that sometimes when making calls on some of these sorts of reports, I’ll consider the upvote-to-downvote ratio. And in this particular case, it seems like the majority are reading this post the way I did, not the way the reporter did.
Reports are appreciated, though. I’d much rather have reports that I ultimately ruled against than lack reports when something does need acted on. Please don’t take one of these “I disagree with the reporter” sort of posts as a deterrent on reporting. My only intention is transparency.
Got a report on this one:
I’m guessing that the reporter sees this as trying to sell the view that “AI can create post-scarcity” (even if only in a criti-hype kind of way). The screenshotted comment says “abundant food, energy, housing, labour, etc … are too hard for them right now” (emphasas mine). Maybe that could be read as a temporary condition; that even if it can’t now, one day AI will usher in an era of post-scarcity. Maybe pseudoLit does believe that to be a possibility. Not sure. But it’s not clear that they believe any such thing, nor that they’re trying to sell anyone else on such a view.
So, in short, I don’t think any of this constitutes AI advocacy or mis/disinformation.
I’ll admit that sometimes when making calls on some of these sorts of reports, I’ll consider the upvote-to-downvote ratio. And in this particular case, it seems like the majority are reading this post the way I did, not the way the reporter did.
Reports are appreciated, though. I’d much rather have reports that I ultimately ruled against than lack reports when something does need acted on. Please don’t take one of these “I disagree with the reporter” sort of posts as a deterrent on reporting. My only intention is transparency.