There’s a very culture-war–flavored bubbledness to a lot of the “AI” “discourse” that I (mostly accidentally) see, and I hate it.
People sure like making categorical statements about what’s possible, impossible, or inevitable with a level of self-confidence that does not befit grownups talking about the unknown.
In particular, I keep seeing this naïve quality to the delivery of controversial statements: a sense of “I’m revealing the truth to you, not making an argument; treat me as such.”
It reminds me of things you hear from people whose information environment is clearly about the size and smell of an Altoids tin: “Homosexuality doesn’t appear in the animal kingdom” or “We’ve never actually observed evolution” or whatever – things where you don’t just want to say no; you want to pull the emergency brake, ask where they heard that, why they believed it, and what they think other people believe.
It’s bad. Even when the conclusions are correct, it’s a bad way to think in public.
A reasonable thing to ask here would be: Charlie, are you Calling For Civility?
Good question. Thanks for asking. And my answer is: Nope. The alternatives here are not (1) status-quo–preserving fear of controversy v. (2) standing in public and playing a recording of your opinions on the loudest speakers you can find. I am positive you can find a way to be firm and even fiery in your arguments without presenting them like things that everyone else was too lazy to think of. I believe in you.