I just worry that sometimes leftists resort to a sort of contrarianism when it comes to anything AI/tech. It’s definitely one of the trickiest domains to navigate imo, especially when you have authoritative sources pretending like a human-computer brain interface (whose performance is indistinguishable from a computer) is a foregone conclusion
I break down when I see/hear people repeating the same shit as a truth despite any evidence, because I always learned that was an example of a delusion. Seems like we’re dealing with a shade of that on a societal level
Keep in mind that “professors at Stanford” still have to get grant money, and they can’t get it by saying “we have no fucking clue how any of this works.” They need to say “we’re on the verge of a breakthrough, so give us money!” Like they’ve been saying for the past 50+ years. And the pop science reporting certainly doesn’t help matters, because it is often written by either techbros with dollar signs in their eyes or overworked science journalists who need to write a dozen articles by the end of the week and don’t have time to actually make sure they’re reporting things factually and in a way that isn’t going to give the wrong impression to laypeople.
Good point tbh, super hard to separate the what from the chaff in academia, especially when you learn it’s like everything else in existence (multiple sides with one of those being ideologically libertarian)
I just worry that sometimes leftists resort to a sort of contrarianism when it comes to anything AI/tech. It’s definitely one of the trickiest domains to navigate imo, especially when you have authoritative sources pretending like a human-computer brain interface (whose performance is indistinguishable from a computer) is a foregone conclusion
I break down when I see/hear people repeating the same shit as a truth despite any evidence, because I always learned that was an example of a delusion. Seems like we’re dealing with a shade of that on a societal level
Keep in mind that “professors at Stanford” still have to get grant money, and they can’t get it by saying “we have no fucking clue how any of this works.” They need to say “we’re on the verge of a breakthrough, so give us money!” Like they’ve been saying for the past 50+ years. And the pop science reporting certainly doesn’t help matters, because it is often written by either techbros with dollar signs in their eyes or overworked science journalists who need to write a dozen articles by the end of the week and don’t have time to actually make sure they’re reporting things factually and in a way that isn’t going to give the wrong impression to laypeople.
Good point tbh, super hard to separate the what from the chaff in academia, especially when you learn it’s like everything else in existence (multiple sides with one of those being ideologically libertarian)