I don't think that definition meets what people would consider an invention.

The AK47 is an invention. The inventor "would prefer to have invented a machine that people could use and that would help farmers with their work - for example a lawnmower", but people still consider it an invention. Inventions do not have a polarity in the axis of quality of life.

There is no consensus on if GenAI is overall harmful or not. In general people are optimistic but concerned.

The last thing we need is another war on drugs.

I would rate A/B testing on human behaviour, or advertising to be more harmful to the overall human experience than GenAI.

Delegating the thinking and feeling parts of the human experience, mechanizing human creativity itself, is a direct attack on human dignity.

It makes people dumber, less self-sufficient and (maybe worst of all) less interesting.

I think genAI has been strictly worse for humanity. It's destroying the quality of our industry, it turns creative fields into slop, etc. It is all downside and no benefit, in my opinion.

I think there are other digital technologies that are also a lot like drugs and deserve similar regulation. I.e. if your social media company decides it wants to be a platform and insert stuff to inflame you or generate more engagement....it's a drug, not a tool for social connection..

I think there are ways you could serve ads and make money as a business, just not as much money, and not be basically a drug. The social media giants choose not to do this of course and will have to be forced.

I am distinctly less libertarian/classically liberal/etc. than the average user of HN though. So I understand that this opinion is likely to get me downvoted. I prefer to think that I live in the real world and have seen the damage these things have caused and am not in a tech-only friend group bubble.

[flagged]