Conversation

deleted that tweet that was getting ratio'd, not cause I take it back, but because it was generating a disproportionate amount of yelling at me. I'm planning on writing a much more in-depth and less ratio-able blog post about my reasoning on the topic! But to clarify:
543
536
Replying to
In my view, incentive structures are really hard, and we can see times where what felt like good intentions (like the war on drugs) fucked up big time (creating cartels). Sometimes things that feel unintuitive are the things that end up having the best outcomes.
140
405
Replying to
Sorry you had to delete it. That tweet reminded me of Haidt’s “moral dumbfounding”: there are just stuff that are universally immoral (CP) no matter how you much you try to mitigate & rationalize it (AI-generated content harms no-one). But 1/2
1
Replying to and
I don’t think the market argument is strong either: have you considered that flooding the market with fake alternatives would just drive more demand for the real thing? That didn’t quite work out for leather, for example.
2
Replying to
With all due respect, I think you are dead wrong. All you would do is desensitise people to this horrible shit, and promote it even more. What happens when they don't get off on the "fake" and then go look for the "real". They get off on the pain inflicted. Not the act itself
3
11