• MissesAutumnRains@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    In this story, do you consider the many objectively good qualities of the scarf to be relevant in any way? How comfortable it is? How warm? How stylish? Would you dismiss the pleas of environmentalists for being too narrow minded in their denial of these many clear benefits?

    This comes across a bit condescendingly. I obviously think that destroying the environment is a bad thing.

    But I think you’re misreading my point entirely. I’m not advocating for AI wholesale or saying the ends justify the means, so I don’t see how the Lorax is relevant here.

    • Carnelian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      We’re currently in the beginning of the story, the alarm is sounding, and instead of firmly rejecting it, we find ourselves trying to balance the discussion by reminding ourselves of the many positive things people like about AI

      Everyone agrees destroying the environment is bad, just like everyone agrees Hitler was bad. But when we find ourselves in modern parallels of these situations it seems like decisive action is often derailed for the sake of nuance.

      I apologize for any condescending air, I am not accusing you of vehemently supporting the scarf industry. I think this discussion is just a bit tough to keep grounded as we shift between addressing each other, ideas in general, and the people we know who hold them. I appreciate your posts and bringing forward the perspectives you’ve encountered and your thoughts about them