Anyway, @zkat warned us. Talking about whether or not AI "works" was a trap, and always was. The ethical component is all that matters, and from that analysis alone, the onus is on all of us to reject and oppose AI.

Getting mired into whether or not it "works" is bad praxis in several ways: it de-emphasizes the ethics, it opens up to goalpost shifting about what it means for AI to "work," and it's easier for the boosters to Gish gallop or overwhelm with jargon.

@xgranade One reason many people want to avoid the ethical arguments is because many people won't actually take any action based on ethics. They may claim to have ethics, perhaps even the same ethics you do, but actually changing behavior, holding others accountable, organizing etc. simply doesn't happen.

These things only happen if other considerations come into play.

I don't know how to save our democracy/civilization/biosphere if we can't get people to act on ethics.

@xgranade Example: I begged my Dad to kill his lawn for years. I admit it was a personal vendetta, because I hated mowing it as a child, it's a very hilly property and I feel lucky I never slipped and caught a foot in the mower blades. But because I'm driven by ethics, I laid out all of the harms that lawns cause. Couldn't budge him.

Finally he got old enough he couldn't mow it himself, and no professional wanted to mow the hills either. I suggested he replace it with native plants, boom! Done.

@xgranade Just to be clear, I wouldn't have tried making these ethical arguments if my dad didn't seem to care about the same stuff I do.

He loves birds and used to put a lot of energy into birdwatching, so I explained how birds are dying out without the insect life most birds need to feed their babies, and insects depend on native plants. Loving birds was not sufficient to make him take action to help them survive in his yard, until he had a selfish motive.