[gip]

> "immoral technofascist life"

Many people would rather argue about morality and conscience (of our time, of our society) instead of confronting facts and reality. What we see here is a textbook case of that.

[tdb7893]

Is there a reason you seem to view conscience and confronting facts as seemingly opposed things? Also it seems to me like morality and conscience seem important to argue about, with facts just being part of that argument.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I think that someone interested in discussing facts would not write the phrase "immoral technofascist life". If I took the discussion at face value, I might respond asking for examples of how e.g. Dario Amodei is a "technofascist", but I think we can agree that would be really obtuse of me.

[johnnyanmac]

> instead of confronting facts and reality.

okay, what are the "facts and reality" here? If you're just going to say "AI is here to stay", then you 1) aren't dealing with the core issues people bring up, and 2) aren't brining facts but defeatism. Where would be if we used that logic for, say, Flash?

[socialcommenter]

It's much easier for someone who blurs the facts to keep a clear conscience because they don't have to acknowledge (to themselves) what they've done.

Someone who's clear-eyed about the facts is much more likely to have a guilty conscience/think someone's actions are unconscionable.

I don't mean to argue either side in this discussion, but both sides might be ignoring the facts here.