Should we stop developing artificial intelligence

What made the rate of job able to stay high was the increase in consumption, which lead to a increase in natural resource consumption. It can’t continue to increase that way very long.

Should we stop developing artificial intelligence

We could live very well with a high unemployment rate, by modifying our economical system and our narratives about it.

Should we stop developing artificial intelligence

Technology could create more job, while enough powerful AI could drastically destroy most or all jobs.

Should we stop developing artificial intelligence

Saying what group say what (scientist, public, workers …) seems like a way to put more or less authoritative power on some arguments. Also there is no single narrative on these questions for any of these groups.

There are too much programming languages.

That there are many directions of progress for one given language, doesn’t imply that having more people working on this language wouldn’t improve the rate of progress.

There are too much programming languages.

Your point doesn’t contradict mine. That all language can’t be merged without losing the advantage of some, doesn’t imply that no pair of language could be merged while keeping all the intrinsic advantages of both.

a vegan diet is the most ethically viable

Lions have a livespan of about 12 years, when pearl mussels have a livespan of 200 years. Considering livespan of species instead of individual doesn’t really help eitheir.

a vegan diet is the most ethically viable

Women live longer than men, when men are physically stronger.

a vegan diet is the most ethically viable

Some trees survive super long, individually or as a species.

a vegan diet is the most ethically viable

The strong don’t really survive more than other, except if you define being strong as surviving longer, which would make it a tautology.

a vegan diet is the most ethically viable

There are a lot of protein in a lot of vegan food.

a vegan diet is the most ethically viable

Everybody die, survival is not more natural than dying.

Luck is more valuable than skill

You can improve your skill but you can’t improve your luck.
1 supporter.

There is such a thing as an "objectively good" movie (in contrast to a movie I like, but isn't objectively good).

Any quality of the movie you choose to measure, and any way to weight these properties to get a global measure of goodness, is arbitrary. Sometime even the way to measure a particular quality is subjective.

There is such a thing as an "objectively good" movie (in contrast to a movie I like, but isn't objectively good).

There is no objectively good movie, there are only movies you find subjectively good, and movies you like to watch. That there is a difference between these two things, doesn’t mean one is objective.

It is better not to put an overall rating in a video game test.

Believing it requires less thinking is probably why a lot of people don’t report the fallacy corresponding to what they mean. Or just use it as a authoritative way to say the argument is false, and decrease the meaning and usefulness of this functionality.

It is better not to put an overall rating in a video game test.

A test could contain mostly no useful information when you don’t share the point of view of the writer. When a rating could tell you how much the game is liked by a great number of people, which could be very useful if you have mostly the same taste than the majority.

There are too much programming languages.

In some case, a language X could have all the advantages of another Y, if the working force were united on it.

There are too much programming languages.

It is true for some languages, but a lot of them have mostly the same advantages and disadvantages.

There are too much programming languages.

Each languages have its own advantages and disadvantages, and so each one will be better suited for a particular project, but less for another.
1 supporter.