Yeah you bring up the point that people will get up in arms about someone else using Generative AI in ways they disagree with. But everyone will have some use of generative AI that they either partake in themselves or approve of generally.
Hence why Pro-AI forces will win in the end. An artist who is up in arms about being out-competed by Slop will probably use an LLM to complete some task they consider 'beneath' them and/or not worth paying money for someone else to do. Its just too useful across too many different tasks.
I do not think we're at the literal cusp of superintelligence... but I do think we've passed a point where the cutting edge LLMs are now smarter/more capable than the median human, even the median American in purely 'mental' tasks.
Sienna Rose
If this were the culture war of 4-8 years ago, there'd probably be multiple articles about digital blackface given that the AI product is presented as a black woman's voice and image.
faceh
17hr ago
Yeah. Its like, unless you're being paid pretty handsomely, or defending your life or a loved one against an unavoidable attacker... why do you ever want to fight?
Break a limb and now you've got a medical bill and lost work, and that's assuming no permanent complications. Concussions suck. Brain damage sucks worse. To not even talk about para or quadriplegia, which we aren't yet able to really treat.
I could curmudgeonly blame the movies that VASTLY understate how much damage it takes to incapacitate a human. But it really must come down to people RARELY encountering physical violence in their life unless they're in a profession or lifestyle that demands it.
Fewer people working in factories seeing dudes get dismembered by heavy machinery. Drunken bar brawls are rarer, I'd wager.
Cars are safer, too.
White collar/service jobs really insulate people from this particular facet of reality.
That said, some of us grew up with access to liveleak.
Normally?
A respect for the concept of 'law' as a foundational social good that is generally best to comply with even when its not in your immediate best interests.
Look... we actually saw what happens when the police are pulled back from enforcing basic rules. You can get CHAZ/CHOP.
Famously, the rate of automobile-related deaths for Black Americans shot up in the wake of George Floyd riots.
Deterrence clearly has an effect. And of course if the risks are 'minute' that doesn't inherently mean they're not put in risky situations without much notice and thus need to have the ability to respond proportionally.
I ask you seriously. If a police officer is justified in shooting a woman who is deliberately swinging a knife in his direction (and actually cuts him, nonfatally)... is it hard to see why he might also be justified in shooting a woman who is deliberately driving a car in his direction (and actually strikes him, nonfatally)?
How much 'risk' is he obligated to tolerate in either scenario?
Because they are a criminal with poor impulse control and foresight and in their mind, being arrested means going to jail and driving away, even if it hurts a cop, means maybe not going to jail.
Or they're a protestor who has been convinced by activists that a particular law enforcement agency is a force for evil and if they arrest you they'll shove you into a black site and torture you for resisting the regime and its better to 'resist'.
These are possible answers to that question.
Why do you think Cops carry guns at all?
We could eliminate almost all police shootings by simply disallowing them from carrying weapons on their persons.
I think we're in agreement that there's a medium ground between "cop can never fire their weapons except in the gravest of circumstances" and "cops should be able to gun you down if they feel the smallest threat."
I'm simply suggesting that "police officers can treat moving vehicles like other deadly weapons" is a generally good, stance. I know for sure that if somebody was apparently trying to run me down with a car, I would consider it justifiable to shoot at them. I do not think reasonable people need a 'deterrent' to not run down people with cars... but unreasonable people might.
I don't think it makes any sense to say "we can't know if the danger to the officer was real unless they actually get run over."
More options
Context Copy link