I mean, ultimately we're going to want to spend energy doing stuff. Everything we do has "emissions problems" because everything we do consumes energy. Even if the energy it's consuming is entirely "green" you still need to build the power plants and that energy still costs something.
It's so annoying how suddenly everyone's so convinced that "AI" is some highly specific thing that hasn't been accomplished yet. Artificial intelligence is an extremely broad subject of computer science and things that fit the description have been around for decades. The journal Artificial Intelligence was first published in 1970, 54 years ago.
We've got something that's passing the frickin' Turing test now, and all of a sudden the term "artificial intelligence" is too good for that? Bah.
But that's my point, the term "enshittification" used to mean a very particular kind of thing-people-don't-like. Not just a general "I don't like it."
It'd be like if the term "boring" started being used to signify any kind of disapproval. "Abortion is boring!" People might say. Or "my car keeps leaking oil, it's so boring." "The Supreme Court has turned boring! It's making its decisions based on partisan allegiance rather than the law!"
"Boring" would lose its original specific meaning in this scenario. It was a useful meaning, so I would find that rather unfortunate.
I've heard talk of mbin being a fork with more active development, is it getting "ahead" of kbin or is kbin taking changes back from it? No disrespect intended to Earnest, but a single developer probably can't keep up with all this on their own.
All analogies eventually fail when you dig into them far enough, by nature of what an analogy is. That is, an analogy is not exactly identical to the thing being analogized. If you want to be able to use analogies but refuse to acknowledge that they eventually lose relevance when you stretch them too far then you're simply not amenable to reason.
And then you go and explicitly beg the very question under debate with an "of course I'm right." No, AI art isn't a "scam," whatever you mean by that.
No, just pointing out who's in the "loud but wrong" camp on that one. If ecological concerns are why you think crypto is bad, well, that's not clear cut any more.
You want to keep going with this analogy you brought up, then?
Things that are bad for society should be suppressed and things which are good for society should be promoted. That would seem to be the point of a society.
Great, now we just need to establish whether AI art is "bad for society", and if it is then whether the effects of attempting to ban it would be worse for society.
Further, I notice a pastern in your replies of bringing up metaphor then rejecting the very metaphor as off topic or irrelevant when it is engaged to it's logical conclusion.
What metaphors did I bring up? You're the one who brought fast food into this. I don't see any other metaphors in play.
And yet there's still plenty of traditional restaurants.
Fast food provides a new option. It hasn't destroyed the old. And "terrible" is, once again, in the eye of the beholder - some people like it just fine.
My thoughts are that the Tricontinental is published by Cuba, so I'm immediately dubious about any "imperialism"-related accusations they might be slinging.
The first line of the introduction is "It has been a scant 30 years since the ‘end of history’ was declared by bourgeois ideologists in pantomimes of wish-fulfilment for sensing the inviolability of United States imperialism." That doesn't do much to assuage my first reaction.
Yeah, if we really wanted an instant-death mechanism with zero chance of any pain then we'd probably pack the victim in dynamite and vaporize them faster than nerve signals can travel.
Unfortunately people who are pro-death-penalty are often weirdly squeamish about stuff like that.
I mean, ultimately we're going to want to spend energy doing stuff. Everything we do has "emissions problems" because everything we do consumes energy. Even if the energy it's consuming is entirely "green" you still need to build the power plants and that energy still costs something.