• webadict@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    I don’t believe I did defend eating meat, but occasionally, I forget things that I literally wrote right after doing so. Perhaps you can quote where I did that.

    The issue is the hypocrisy. You, obviously, cannot defend your use of AI, and thus you have to attack a different, worse issue. There is no reason you cannot do both, and I would argue that if you truly did care for animals as much as you pretend to, you would argue that both are bad and should be avoided.

    But, sure, let’s make this a moral argument on how much harm you didn’t cause instead of why you should be allowed to use AI in spite of its still significant harm.

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      I don’t need to defend AI. I don’t have to have a position on AI. My position here is that if readers genuinely give a fuck about, for example, water usage, then their behaviour would be different on this other issue. The moment AI leaves their head, they stop giving even a single fuck about water usage. I am demonstrating that the argument being presented is facile. Deeper than that, I am demonstrating that people are reacting without thought, reflexively, without comprehending their own actions. It is a moral panic and that is how I am engaging with it.