I don't agree that writing, or Google search are on the same level here. A problem about having this argument on HN is that I think most people are already firmly entrenched in the pro-AI position, and will not consider any possible downsides.
There are lots of anti-AI commenters on HN. Also, I didn't say there are no downsides. There are downsides to writing! And some people were against writing, like Socrates.
You should ask yourself why you're okay with innovations that happened in the past but not okay with innovations happening now. It could just be reflexive conservativism.
Of course there's no guarantee that AI will be more positive than negative, but I see no compelling reason to believe that. Most of the anti-AI sentiment is just people not liking new things.
>You should ask yourself why you're okay with innovations that happened in the past but not okay with innovations happening now.
Because these innovations are not congruent with our most important biological advantage! We are here precisely because we developed the capacity to think critically about hard problems. To relegate our critical faculties to an activity you engage with during a small window of time each day similar to a muscle you exercise at the gym is asinine in my opinion. I firmly believe in the future, people like you will become a new underclass as they have willingly given up their ability to think.
Again, people said the same thing about computers, about writing, and so on. Maybe it's true this time, but I think the presumption should be that it's not.
If people who use AI become an "underclass" then people will adapt and...not use AI. But that won't happen. People will use it to augment rather than replace, just like we use other, similar technologies.
