“Evil” is a subjective term, so it is difficult to make headway in discourse using terms like that. I feel that using objective statements are more effective. Someone that thinks AI is “evil” would do better to say something like “I believe this technology to be a net harm to human society.” While difficult to verify and quantify, that statement at least still is verifiable and quantifiable, unlike “AI is evil”.
Only the mentally ill regard humans as tools, though, so that analogy is only apt for them.
He gave his reasoning for the Israel venue that everyone can evaluate for themselves, but drawing the line at libel doesn’t seem that crazy.
Chapter 11, amirite?!
Fool me a dozen times, shame on you. Fool me 13 or more times, shame on me!
deleted by creator
You take that extra “A” back! Those guys dont even deserve the 3 they already have!
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The problem you’re encountering is that every human defines evil differently. Those disagreeing with you seem to define evil to include “detrimental to civilized society”, which does at least come from an objective premise, even if you don’t agree with the assessment.
Through that lens, the good it does for people simply cannot outweigh the bad, because they believe the bad to include the end of society. That is what you’re arguing against, and why people with that view are so energized and are unmoved by the counter-arguments. If you want to change their minds, you would first have to convince them their premise is false, not just their conclusion.