Is HN really this ready to dive into obvious logical fallacies?
My original comment, currently sitting at -4, has so far attracted one guilt-by-association plus implied-threat combo, and no other replies. To remind readers: My horrifying proposal was to measure both the risks and the benefits of things.
If anyone genuinely thinks measuring the risks and benefits of things is a bad idea, or that it is in general a good idea but not in this specific case, please come forward.
> Is HN really this ready to dive into obvious logical fallacies?
No, which is why your comment was downvoted - the following is a fallacy:
> This argument can be made about almost every technology,
That's the continuum fallacy.
No, it isn't the continuum fallacy.
I'm not claiming that a continuous range exists, and that one end cannot be distinguished from the other because the slope between those points is gradual. I'm claiming that there is a category, called technology, and everything in that category is subject to that argument.
If you want to dispute that, it's incumbent on you to provide evidence for why some technology subcategories should not be subject to that argument.
Specifically: You need to present a case for why AI devices like the one discussed in TFA should not be evaluated in terms of their risks and benefits to society.
Good luck with that argument.
sorry for being glib; it was low hanging fruit. my actual point should have been more clearly stated: measuring risk/benefit is really complicated because there's almost never a direct comparison to be made when balancing profit, operational excellence and safety.