I think the vitriol around AI has crossed into moral absolutism for a lot of people. There are legitimate criticisms of AI, but “AI can be harmful” does not logically mean “all AI use is unethical” or “AI has no useful purpose.” Treating every use as morally equivalent is just hasty generalization and guilt by association.
At some point, “AI is bad” stops being a conclusion and becomes a sacred value. Then useful examples are not considered on their merits, they are dismissed because they threaten the moral position. You can criticize harmful uses of AI without pretending the technology itself has no legitimate use.
Why do we all have to be morally homogenous? I use AI tools, but I understand that a “morally absolutist” take from someone who doesnt use it or see the value, and who places a lot of value on, say the environmental or social cost, can be reasonable. I also eat meat but understand that some people have a reasonable argument for totally avoiding it. The messyness is human.
I think the vitriol around AI has crossed into moral absolutism for a lot of people. There are legitimate criticisms of AI, but “AI can be harmful” does not logically mean “all AI use is unethical” or “AI has no useful purpose.” Treating every use as morally equivalent is just hasty generalization and guilt by association.
At some point, “AI is bad” stops being a conclusion and becomes a sacred value. Then useful examples are not considered on their merits, they are dismissed because they threaten the moral position. You can criticize harmful uses of AI without pretending the technology itself has no legitimate use.
Why do we all have to be morally homogenous? I use AI tools, but I understand that a “morally absolutist” take from someone who doesnt use it or see the value, and who places a lot of value on, say the environmental or social cost, can be reasonable. I also eat meat but understand that some people have a reasonable argument for totally avoiding it. The messyness is human.