Just for fun. I wanted tto know what it answers. I asked chatGPT for the best way to convert my friends who hate AI to hate AI a little bit less. Or to have more accpetance for the technology.
I think the answer was sort of weak.
Some arguments were:
differentiating between technology and business model (I think Slavoj Zizek would argument against that there is a claim to power inherent in the system, I think he hints to syophancy and subtle manipulation through reinforcement learning)
discussing concrete examples instead if making generalizing arguments (for example discussing translation, or tool to think sharper)
acknowledging the strongest contra arguments (no consent for the training data, privatizing wins, socializing the loses, outsourcing/lose of abilities, fake neutrality
emphasizing ethical boundaris when using the technology
showing the real benefit without intent to convert them
supporting institutional demands (like demands about transparency of training data, clear usage rules)
I am not sure whether this would have been my reply to this question. My experience is the framing and narrative is more effective than rational arguments. I don't want to convert my friends by the way it is just a thought experiment. I think my friends like me. And if I tell them the AI feedback helps me to cope with my emotions and suicidality that's a very convincing argument that there is at least some benefit. I have some friends who have close to zero first hand experiences with AI. And some of them cannot imagine at all how generative AI could be beneficial for me. I think having no experience it makes it more difficult for you to argument against it in a nuanced way. Though, I sent some friends AI output and they told me it is enough to consider it garbage. Lol. Personally, I think seeing absolutely no value in generative AI is a generalization. The longterm impact on our society and on vulnerable groups is studied.
I wanted to write a complaint. But it was obvious I would not want to pay a lawyer for writing it. I was very emotionally involved but paying thousands of Euros. No I would never have done that. I think the AI feedback helped me to write a somewhat good complaint. And it helped me to act strategically. And the artist in my friend group had to admit under these circumstances he sees how this technology has helped me. He obviously still thinks the technology was build on theft.
I think my answer isn't very elaborate. But I want to tell another anecdote. Barely anyone in my friend group uses generative AI. I asked them who will be the next one using chatbots. And they replied probably our parents. Another one replied he thinks the people who didn't use it yet probably won't change thei behavior in the future. I told him I have some doubts about that. I told him in the workplace the usage of generative AI becomes more and more important. And I think some people who boycott the technology privately will have to use it in the workplace. And this could also affect their private life. I am not sure whether a full boycott will actually work out. A friend told me he just hopes that the bubble will burst eventually. I am not sure if my friends are principled enough to become unemployed as a consequence. Maybe the answer will be: not the best arguments will work. Just a necessity to accept the technology because to boycott it fully might be close to impossible. Or way too costly.
I think the answer was sort of weak.
Some arguments were:
differentiating between technology and business model (I think Slavoj Zizek would argument against that there is a claim to power inherent in the system, I think he hints to syophancy and subtle manipulation through reinforcement learning)
discussing concrete examples instead if making generalizing arguments (for example discussing translation, or tool to think sharper)
acknowledging the strongest contra arguments (no consent for the training data, privatizing wins, socializing the loses, outsourcing/lose of abilities, fake neutrality
emphasizing ethical boundaris when using the technology
showing the real benefit without intent to convert them
supporting institutional demands (like demands about transparency of training data, clear usage rules)
I am not sure whether this would have been my reply to this question. My experience is the framing and narrative is more effective than rational arguments. I don't want to convert my friends by the way it is just a thought experiment. I think my friends like me. And if I tell them the AI feedback helps me to cope with my emotions and suicidality that's a very convincing argument that there is at least some benefit. I have some friends who have close to zero first hand experiences with AI. And some of them cannot imagine at all how generative AI could be beneficial for me. I think having no experience it makes it more difficult for you to argument against it in a nuanced way. Though, I sent some friends AI output and they told me it is enough to consider it garbage. Lol. Personally, I think seeing absolutely no value in generative AI is a generalization. The longterm impact on our society and on vulnerable groups is studied.
I wanted to write a complaint. But it was obvious I would not want to pay a lawyer for writing it. I was very emotionally involved but paying thousands of Euros. No I would never have done that. I think the AI feedback helped me to write a somewhat good complaint. And it helped me to act strategically. And the artist in my friend group had to admit under these circumstances he sees how this technology has helped me. He obviously still thinks the technology was build on theft.
I think my answer isn't very elaborate. But I want to tell another anecdote. Barely anyone in my friend group uses generative AI. I asked them who will be the next one using chatbots. And they replied probably our parents. Another one replied he thinks the people who didn't use it yet probably won't change thei behavior in the future. I told him I have some doubts about that. I told him in the workplace the usage of generative AI becomes more and more important. And I think some people who boycott the technology privately will have to use it in the workplace. And this could also affect their private life. I am not sure whether a full boycott will actually work out. A friend told me he just hopes that the bubble will burst eventually. I am not sure if my friends are principled enough to become unemployed as a consequence. Maybe the answer will be: not the best arguments will work. Just a necessity to accept the technology because to boycott it fully might be close to impossible. Or way too costly.
Last edited:
