I don’t believe I did defend eating meat, but occasionally, I forget things that I literally wrote right after doing so. Perhaps you can quote where I did that.
The issue is the hypocrisy. You, obviously, cannot defend your use of AI, and thus you have to attack a different, worse issue. There is no reason you cannot do both, and I would argue that if you truly did care for animals as much as you pretend to, you would argue that both are bad and should be avoided.
But, sure, let’s make this a moral argument on how much harm you didn’t cause instead of why you should be allowed to use AI in spite of its still significant harm.
I don’t need to defend AI. I don’t have to have a position on AI. My position here is that if readers genuinely give a fuck about, for example, water usage, then their behaviour would be different on this other issue. The moment AI leaves their head, they stop giving even a single fuck about water usage. I am demonstrating that the argument being presented is facile. Deeper than that, I am demonstrating that people are reacting without thought, reflexively, without comprehending their own actions. It is a moral panic and that is how I am engaging with it.
Okay, so your argument is that AI is destroying the planet, but not wanting to use it is also somehow bad.
I mean, you don’t need AI to live. You might need meat to live, depending on circumstance, but anywhere that you don’t need meat to live, you definitely don’t need AI to live, so AI would be the worse one to use. So, saying the meat industry is worse is still saying AI is bad.
It just seems like you are trying to make yourself feel better, and you should absolutely feel bad.
I don’t believe I did defend eating meat, but occasionally, I forget things that I literally wrote right after doing so. Perhaps you can quote where I did that.
The issue is the hypocrisy. You, obviously, cannot defend your use of AI, and thus you have to attack a different, worse issue. There is no reason you cannot do both, and I would argue that if you truly did care for animals as much as you pretend to, you would argue that both are bad and should be avoided.
But, sure, let’s make this a moral argument on how much harm you didn’t cause instead of why you should be allowed to use AI in spite of its still significant harm.
I don’t need to defend AI. I don’t have to have a position on AI. My position here is that if readers genuinely give a fuck about, for example, water usage, then their behaviour would be different on this other issue. The moment AI leaves their head, they stop giving even a single fuck about water usage. I am demonstrating that the argument being presented is facile. Deeper than that, I am demonstrating that people are reacting without thought, reflexively, without comprehending their own actions. It is a moral panic and that is how I am engaging with it.
Okay, so your argument is that AI is destroying the planet, but not wanting to use it is also somehow bad.
I mean, you don’t need AI to live. You might need meat to live, depending on circumstance, but anywhere that you don’t need meat to live, you definitely don’t need AI to live, so AI would be the worse one to use. So, saying the meat industry is worse is still saying AI is bad.
It just seems like you are trying to make yourself feel better, and you should absolutely feel bad.