• 0 Posts
  • 7 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 23rd, 2023

help-circle

  • A point I haven’t seen yet is just general eugenics. I know OP says “no appearance or mind” but genetic diseases directly affect those. Take deafness, for example. It can be genetic and therefore could be “fixed.” The deaf community would be fucking furious (cochlear implants can be incredibly controversial). Blindness can also be genetic. Cleft lips and club feet can be genetic (or influenced by) and they can be really gnarly so why wouldn’t we fix those? And since we’re fixing things, why not fix autism and Down’s syndrome (I know we said no mind but those are truly game changers!) and oh shit now we’re in Gattaca. Eugenics is bad. I won’t fully commit to a slippery slope because that’s a fallacy; I will say very convincing science fiction has been written about this and I have seen nothing under capitalism (or communism!) that convinces me that wouldn’t happen.




  • I don’t think the older generations accurately highlighted how shitty those were as replacements because they weren’t shitty. Google, Wikipedia, and calculators actually brought meaningful improvements. This AI slop provides nothing on a shitty MS Paint meme or stick figure napkin sketch. Calculators, Wikipedia, and Google aren’t in a death race to consume water and energy faster than the world can handle. Calculators and Wikipedia (not Google tho) aren’t in a death race to move as many resources away from the working class as possible.

    The other blindingly important part of those criticisms is their context. There are situations where it is valid to not use calculators, Google, or Wikipedia. Trying to say “but I want to make sweeping generalizations that miss the point of contextual arguments so I can justify AI slop burning fossil fuels” highlights just how much you misunderstand all of it.