>I think a lot of the problem with the current discourse is how black-and-white it is.
There is too much money involved for any rational debate.
> There is too much money involved for any rational debate.
For the Sam Altmans of this world, sure, but how much money is the average AI booster commenting on HN actually standing to make?
Exactly. Also, keep in mind that CEOs have both a personal monetary incentive and a fiduciary duty to do what's in the best interest of their company.
It is batshit insane to me that these days we put a microphone to CEOs, ask them to predict the future, and believe it. The only correct answer that they can say into that microphone is whatever is beneficial to their company, nothing less or more.
Only on the pro-AI side. The "it is bad" side is diverse on the reasons why, but being overwhelmed by bad content isn't a monetary concern.