> Nobody disagrees, there is zero disagreement, there is no war in Ba Sing Se.
This captures my chief irk over these sorts of "interviews" and AI boosterism quite nicely.
Assume they're being 100% honest that they genuinely believe nobody disagrees with their statement. That leaves one of two possible outcomes:
1) They have not ingested data from beyond their narrow echo chamber that could challenge their perceptions, revealing an irresponsible, nay, negligent amount of ignorance for people in positions of authority or power
OR
2) They do not see their opponents as people.
Like, that's it. They're either ignorant or they view their opposition as subhuman. There is no gray area here, and it's why I get riled up when they're allowed to speak unchallenged at length like this. Genuinely good ideas don't need this much defense, and genuinely useful technologies don't need to be forced down throats.
option 3: reject the premise that they're being 100% honest
this third option seems like the most reasonable option here? the way you worded this makes it seems like there are only these two options to reach your absurd conclusion
> like thats it
> There is no gray area here
re-examine your assumptions
...did you just skip the first part where I literally preface my argument with this line?
> Assume they're being 100% honest that they genuinely believe nobody disagrees with their statement.
That's the core assumption. It's meant to give them the complete benefit of the doubt, and show that doing so means their argument is either ignorant or their perspective that opponents aren't people.
Obviously they're being dishonest little shits, but calling that out point-blank is hostile and results in blind dismissal of the toxicity of their position. Asking someone to complete the thought experiment ("They're behaving honestly, therefore...") is the entire exercise.
Yeah i read that part. Thats the part thats wrong.
To be honest, I kind of think it's a combination of both #2 and #3.
They know they're lying. But they also believe, and they want everyone else to believe, that anyone who disagrees with them is subhuman, inconsequential.
I think you're being uncharitable towards option 2. When a physicist says "nobody disagrees that perpetual motion machines are impossible", are they saying that Jimbo who thinks he's built one in his garage is subhuman? Of course not. What they mean is that all experts who've seriously considered the issue agree, and they see so little substance in non-expert objections that it's not worth engaging.
> 2) They do not see their opponents as people.
> Like, that's it. They're either ignorant or they view their opposition as subhuman.
I'm going to go a bit off topic, but tech people often just inhale sci-fi, and I think we ought to reckon the problems with that, especially when tech people get into position of power.
Take Dune, for instance. Everyone know Vladimir Harkonnen is a bad guy, but even the good-guy Atreides seem to be spending their time fighting and assassinating, Paul's jihad kills 60 billion people, and Leto II is a totalitarian tyrant. It's all elite power-and-dominance shit, not even the protagonists are good people when you think about it. Regular people merit barely a mention, and are just fodder.
Often the people are cardboard, and it's the (fantasy) tech and the "world building" that are the focus.
It doesn't seem like it'd be good influence on someone's worldview, especially when not balanced sufficiently by other influences.
> They do not see their opponents as people.
You hit the nail on their head.
They go out of their way to call you an "AI bot" if you say something that contradicts their delusional world view.