> If you call this stance “anti-AI,” again, I encourage you to read the declaration: it specifically promotes responsible development and use of AI to improve human well-being.
But "responsible" is an arbitrary definition that is enforced by the same group that is most-inclined to abuse it. The only likely outcome is that a) the state will develop all applicable use-cases for AI insofar as they are relevent and b) will use this sort of reactionary drivel to limit the free usage and proliferation of information. There is no upside to encouraging this mindset, you have added your name to a list of tools.
> If you call this stance “anti-AI,” again, I encourage you to read the declaration: it specifically promotes responsible development and use of AI to improve human well-being.
But "responsible" is an arbitrary definition that is enforced by the same group that is most-inclined to abuse it. The only likely outcome is that a) the state will develop all applicable use-cases for AI insofar as they are relevent and b) will use this sort of reactionary drivel to limit the free usage and proliferation of information. There is no upside to encouraging this mindset, you have added your name to a list of tools.