"I am in a business where people are losing their jobs to AI and I do not see why we should aid and abet the process."
So what of the millions of jobs you're actively hoping to axe by ridding the world of fossil fuel extraction, refinement, and delivery industries? Or of the ICE auto manufacturing, maintenance, and repair industries? Or m…
"I am in a business where people are losing their jobs to AI and I do not see why we should aid and abet the process."
So what of the millions of jobs you're actively hoping to axe by ridding the world of fossil fuel extraction, refinement, and delivery industries? Or of the ICE auto manufacturing, maintenance, and repair industries? Or monoculture farmers and cattle ranchers? There are a myriad of industries facing annihilation each and every day by gullible climate "crisis" blowhards who think nothing of the people's livelihoods that are at stake should all those industries go away. (It's like Biden saying West Virginia coal miners should "learn how to code" instead as a way to feed and support their families—totally out of touch with reality.)
I find it deliciously ironic that only *NOW* after A.I. has begun impacting your *OWN* personal industry you're expressing concern of the perceived perils of what A.I. can render obsolete, wanting its use/impact limited or banned. Why not afford that same freedom and equality to those people who's livelihoods are dependent on things you don't like, such as fossil fuels and large-scale agriculture? Why is your industry the one needing protection but not those who provide 86% of the world's energy use and feed billions of people around the world?
Ok so we are climate crisis blowhards trying to kill those fine jobs in the fossil fuel industry and gasoline cars, oh and cows, you don’t believe a word that I write. Why are you here? I like having a “loyal opposition” as GraniteGrok calls it, but it seems like you are wasting your time.
VB makes great points on the hypocrisy front. "Sustainability" requires that millions are out of jobs, either directly or by death.
Doubt me? Look at the "sustainability" strictures that the EU and national bureaucrats have tried to place on farmers by a myriad of ways. THEY lose their jobs - the food that they are not allowed to provide means death to others.
You rail about "progress" in the computer field - I rail about the actual harms from "progressive" (re: socialists and de-growthers) all too willing to accept the broken eggs from their Utopian omelet.
At least with AI, people can re- or up-skill themselves and move on from the current "buggy-whip" computer industry. To the second, people just die.
Which is more evil, Lloyd? The first still allows choice - the second removes ALL choices (in the name of sustainability).
"I am in a business where people are losing their jobs to AI and I do not see why we should aid and abet the process."
So what of the millions of jobs you're actively hoping to axe by ridding the world of fossil fuel extraction, refinement, and delivery industries? Or of the ICE auto manufacturing, maintenance, and repair industries? Or monoculture farmers and cattle ranchers? There are a myriad of industries facing annihilation each and every day by gullible climate "crisis" blowhards who think nothing of the people's livelihoods that are at stake should all those industries go away. (It's like Biden saying West Virginia coal miners should "learn how to code" instead as a way to feed and support their families—totally out of touch with reality.)
I find it deliciously ironic that only *NOW* after A.I. has begun impacting your *OWN* personal industry you're expressing concern of the perceived perils of what A.I. can render obsolete, wanting its use/impact limited or banned. Why not afford that same freedom and equality to those people who's livelihoods are dependent on things you don't like, such as fossil fuels and large-scale agriculture? Why is your industry the one needing protection but not those who provide 86% of the world's energy use and feed billions of people around the world?
Ok so we are climate crisis blowhards trying to kill those fine jobs in the fossil fuel industry and gasoline cars, oh and cows, you don’t believe a word that I write. Why are you here? I like having a “loyal opposition” as GraniteGrok calls it, but it seems like you are wasting your time.
It is always good to know what your "opposition" is doing. We must know what is coming around the pike so we are not blindsided.
VB makes great points on the hypocrisy front. "Sustainability" requires that millions are out of jobs, either directly or by death.
Doubt me? Look at the "sustainability" strictures that the EU and national bureaucrats have tried to place on farmers by a myriad of ways. THEY lose their jobs - the food that they are not allowed to provide means death to others.
You rail about "progress" in the computer field - I rail about the actual harms from "progressive" (re: socialists and de-growthers) all too willing to accept the broken eggs from their Utopian omelet.
At least with AI, people can re- or up-skill themselves and move on from the current "buggy-whip" computer industry. To the second, people just die.
Which is more evil, Lloyd? The first still allows choice - the second removes ALL choices (in the name of sustainability).
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/10/green-activists-menace-humanity/