So if millions of people pay for something it must be helping average people but if 10s of millions of average people express concerns about a thing than what? I would assume since you were happy to go with the will of the people when it supported your argument, you would be in complete support of actually regulating ai and addressing the many concerns of society at large?
I'm fine with regulating AI. I'd note that saying something in a poll is cheap talk whereas paying 20$ a month is not. But I can understand e.g. that people may derive value from their cars, whilst simultaneously being concerned about global warming and traffic jams.
I actually have seen comparisons of using AI to a gacha game (quotas per time block, elements of chance, sycophancy in the output leading towards addiction or even psychosis in rare cases).
But I don't think the argument needs to be "AI is like gambling". The argument only needs to be "humans often behave irrationally and even self-destructively".
This is not the argument. It's not a comparison to gambling but a comparison to something that does not materially improve a person's life. Economic expenditure does not equate to human benefit. This is the original argument, and the onus is on THAT person to explain why people spending for AI actually benefit, not the other way around.
I think it’s widely accepted that most things are bought because they satisfy people’s needs or wants. Sure, there are exceptions, like drugs or gambling. Is there any reason to think AI is one of them?
addiction? get lured in with the promises of enhanced productivity and knowledge asking, leave with half your brain rotted and a $200/month subscription
