1. Post in !techtakes@awful.systems attacks the entire concept of AI safety as a made-up boogeyman
  2. I disagree and am attacked from all sides for “posting like an evangelist”
  3. I give citations for things I thought would be obvious, such as that AI technology in general has been improving in capability compared to several years ago
  4. Instance ban, “promptfondling evangelist”

This one I’m not aggrieved about as much, it’s just weird. It’s reminiscent of the lemmy.ml type of echo chamber where everyone’s convinced it’s one way, because in a self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone who is not convinced gets yelled at and receives a ban.

Full context: https://ponder.cat/post/1030285 (Some of my replies were after the ban because I didn’t PT Barnum carefully enough, so didn’t realize.)

  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
    1·
    6 hours ago

    I wasn’t talking about AI safety as a general concept

    Okay, cool. I was. That was my whole point, that even if some is grift, AI safety itself is a real and important thing, and that’s an important thing to keep in mind.

    I think I’ve explained myself enough at this point. If you don’t know that the paperclips reference from the linked article is indicative of the exact profit maximization situation that I explained in more detail for you when you asked, or you can’t see how the paper I linked might be a reasonable response if someone complains that I haven’t given proof that AI technology has ever gained abilities over time, then I think I’ll leave you with those conclusions, if those are the conclusions you’ve reached.