You are misconstruing the original point. They are simply suggesting that the moral qualms of using AI are simply not that high - neither to vast majority of consumers, neither to the government. There are a few people who might exaggerate these moral issues for self service but they wouldn't matter in the long term.
That is not to suggest there are absolutely no legitimate moral problems with AI but they will pale in comparison to what the market needs.
If AI can make things 1000x more efficient, humanity will collectively agree in one way or the other to ignore or work around the "moral hazards" for the greater good.
You can start by explaining what your specific moral value is that goes against AI use? It might bring to clarity whether these values are that important at all to begin with.
Is that the promise of the faustian bargain we're signing?
Once the ink is dry, should I expect to be living in a 900,000 sq ft apartment, or be spending $20/year on healthcare? Or be working only an hour a week?
We can live without a flat screen TV (which has gotten dirt cheap). We can't live without a decent house. Or worse, while we can live in some 500 sq ft shack we can't truly "live" if there's no other public amenities to gather and socialize without nickel-and-diming us.
But it requires giving up things a lot of people don't want to, because consuming less once you are used to consuming more sucks. Here is a list of things people can cut from their life that are part of the "consumption has gone up" and "new categories of consumption were opened" that ovi256 was talking about:
- One can give up cell phones, headphones/earbuds, mobile phone plans, mobile data plans, tablets, ereaders, and paid apps/services. That can save $100/mo in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 20 years ago.
- One can give up laptops, desktops, gaming consoles, internet service, and paid apps/services. That can save another $100/months in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 30 years ago.
- One can give up imported produce and year-round availability of fresh foods. Depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save almost nothing, or up to hundreds of dollars every month. This was a luxury 50 years ago.
- One can give up restaurant, take-out, and home pre-packaged foods. Again depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save nothing-to-hundreds every month. This was a luxury 70 years ago.
- One can give up car ownership, car rentals, car insurance, car maintenance, and gasoline. In urban areas, walking and public transit are much cheaper options. In rural areas, walking, bicycling, and getting rides from shuttle services and/or friends are much cheaper options. That could save over a thousand dollars a month per 15,000 miles. This was a luxury 80 years ago.
I could keep going, but by this point I've likely suggested cutting something you now consider necessary consumption. If you thought one "can't just give that up nowadays," I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm just hoping you acknowledge that what people consider optional consumption has changed, which means people consume a lot more.
It's not clear that it's still possible to function in society today with out a cell phone and a cell phone plan. Many things that were possible to do before without one now require it.
> - One can give up laptops, desktops, gaming consoles, internet service, and paid apps/services. That can save another $100/months in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 30 years ago.
Maybe you can replace these with the cell phone + plan.
> - One can give up imported produce and year-round availability of fresh foods. Depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save almost nothing, or up to hundreds of dollars every month. This was a luxury 50 years ago.
It's not clear that imported food is cheaper than locally grown food. Also I'm not sure you have the right time frame. I'm pretty sure my parents were buying imported produce in the winter when I was a kid 50 years ago.
> - One can give up restaurant, take-out, and home pre-packaged foods. Again depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save nothing-to-hundreds every month. This was a luxury 70 years ago.
Agreed.
> - One can give up car ownership, car rentals, car insurance, car maintenance, and gasoline. In urban areas, walking and public transit are much cheaper options. In rural areas, walking, bicycling, and getting rides from shuttle services and/or friends are much cheaper options. That could save over a thousand dollars a month per 15,000 miles. This was a luxury 80 years ago.
Yes but in urban areas whatever you're saving on cars you are probably spending on higher rent and mortgage costs compared to rural areas where cars are a necessity. And if we're talking USA, many urban areas have terrible public transportation and you probably still need Uber or the equivalent some of the time, depending on just how walkable/bike-able your neighborhood is.
> It's not clear that it's still possible to function in society today with out a cell phone
Like I said... I've likely suggested cutting something you now consider necessary consumption. If you thought one "can't just give that up nowadays," I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm just hoping you acknowledge that what people consider optional consumption has changed, which means people consume a lot more.
---
As an aside, I live in a rural area. The population of my county is about 17,000 and the population of its county seat is about 3,000. We're a good 40 minutes away from the city that centers the Metropolitan Statistical Area. A 1 bedroom apartment is $400/mo and a 2 bedroom apartment is $600/mo. In one month, minimum wage will be $15/hr.
Some folks here do live without a car. It is possible. They get by in exactly the ways I described (except some of the Amish/Mennonites, who also use horses). It's not preferred (except by some of the Amish/Mennonites), but one can make it work.
This idea that increased consumption over the past century has been irrelevant to quality of life is just absurd.
Past 50 years...meh.
I've been alive slightly longer than that. And can't say life today is definitively better than 50 years ago in the USA.
It was the tail end of one income affording a house and groceries for a family. So to afford the same things, for many families requires almost double the labor.
A lot of new medical treatments, less smoking and drinking, overall longer life spans. But more recently increases to longevity have plateaued, and an epic of obesity has mitigated a lot of the health care improvements. And the astronomical increases in health care costs means improvements to health care capabilities are not available to a lot of people, at least not without greatly reducing their standard of living elsewhere.
College and university costs have grown exponentially, with no discernible increase in the quality of learning.
Housing prices far outpacing inflation of other goods and services.
Fewer intact families, less in person interactions, and the heroin like addictiveness of screens, have ushered in an epidemic of mental illness that might be unprecedented.
Now AI scaring the shit out of everyone, that no matter how hard you study, how disciplined and responsible you are, there's a good chance you will not be gainfully employed.
I frankly think the quality of life in the world I grew up in is better than the one my kids have today.
But if we take "surprisingly small salary" to literally mean salary, most (... all?) salaried jobs require you to work full time, 40 hours a week. Unless we consider cushy remote tech jobs, but those are an odd case and likely to go away if we assume AI is taking over there.
Part time / hourly work is largely less skilled and much lower paid, and you'll want to take all the hours you can get to be able to afford outright necessities like rent. (Unless you're considering rent as consumption/luxury, which is fair)
It does seem like there's a gap in terms of skilled/highly paid but hourly/part time work.
(Not disagreeing with the rest of your post though)
>I'm just hoping you acknowledge that what people consider optional consumption has changed, which means people consume a lot more.
Of course it's changed. The point is that
1. the necessities haven't changed and have gotten more expensive. People need healthcare, housing, food, and tranport. All up.
2. the modern day expectations means necessities change. We can't walk into a business and shake someone's hand to get a job, so you "need" access to the internet to get a job. Recruiters also expect a consistent phone number to call so good luck skipping a phone line (maybe VOIP can get around this).
These are society's fault as they shifted to pleasing shareholders and outsourcing entire industries (and of course submitted to lobbying). so I don't like this blame being shifted to the individual for daring to consume to survive.
As an aside, every thread I see here has a comment by you lol, that's some good effort but maybe take a break from such strenuous commenting, I say this sincerely as I also used to get into all these back and forths on HN and then realized, much of the time, it's a waste of my own time.
If you think your life is a waste right now, do something with it. That's actually the number one thing people don't expect from being retired, how bored they get. They say in FIRE communities that all the money and time in the world won't help if you don't actually utilize it.
But that's not what they said, they said they want to work less. As the GP post said, they'd still be working a full week.
I do think this is an interesting point. The trend for most of history seems to have been vastly increasing consumption/luxury while work hours somewhat decrease. But have we reached the point where that's not what people want? I'd wager most people in rich developed countries don't particularly want more clothes, gadgets, cars, or fast food. If they can get the current typical middle class share of those things (which to be fair is a big share, and not environmentally sustainable), along with a modest place to live, they (we) mainly want to work less.
Not really a "want" as much as "move where the jobs are". Remote jobs are shakey now and being in the middle of nowhere only worsens your compensation aspects. Being able to live wherever you please is indeed a luxury. The suburb structure already sacrificed the aspect of high CoL for increase commute time to work.
I also do think that dismissing aspects of humanity like family, community and sense of purpose to "luxuries" is an extremely dangerous line of thinking.
Then the hospital takes the house to pay off the rest of the debts. Everybody wins!
There's more to cosume than 50 years ago, but I don't see that trend continuing. We shifted phone bills to cell phone bills and added internet bills and a myriad of subscriptions. But that's really it. everything was "turn one time into subscrition".
I don't see what will fundamentally shift that current consumption for the next 20-30 years. Just more conversion of ownership to renting. In entertainment we're already seeing revolts against this as piracy surges. I don't know how we're going to "consume a lot more" in this case.
But _somebody_ will be living in a 900,000 sq ft apartment and working an hour a week, and the concept of money will be defunct.
And I believe they (and I) are suggesting that this is just a bad faith spin on the market, if you look at actual AI confidence and sentiment and don't ignore it as "ehh just the internet whining". Consumers having less money to spend doesn't mean they are adopting AI en masse, nor are happy about it.
I don't think using the 2025 US government for a moral compass is helping your case either.
>If AI can make things 1000x more efficient
Exhibit A. My observations suggest that consumers are beyond tired of talking about the "what ifs" while they struggle to afford rent or get a job in this economy, right now. All the current gains are for corporate billionaires, why would they think that suddenly changes here and now?
But don’t expect the market to care. Don’t write a blog post whining about your morals, when the market is telling you loud and clear they want X. The market doesn’t give a shit about your idiosyncratic moral stance.
Edit: I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t take a moral stance, even a costly one, but it makes for a really poor sales pitch. In my experience this kind of desperate post will hurt business more than help it. If people don’t want what you’re selling, find something else to sell.
Does it tho? Articles like [1] or [2] seem to be at odd with this interpretation. If it were any different we wouldn't be talking about the "AI bubble" after all.
[1]https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-exec-asks-why-arent-mor...
[2]https://fortune.com/2025/08/18/mit-report-95-percent-generat...
2) if you had read the paper you wouldn’t use it as an example here.
Good faith discussion on what the market feels about LLMs would include Gemini, ChatGPT numbers. Overall market cap of these companies. And not cherry picked misunderstood articles.
I bet a few Pets.com exec were also wondering why people weren't impressed with their website.
"Jeez there so many cynics! It cracks me up when I hear people call AI underwhelming,”
ChatGPT can listen to you in real time, understands multiply languages very well and responds in a very natural way. This is breath taking and not on the horizon just a few years ago.
AI Transcription of Videos is now a really cool and helpful feature in MS Teams.
Segment Anything literaly leapfroged progress on image segmentation.
You can generate any image you want in high quality in just a few seconds.
There are already human beings being shitier in their daily job than a LLM is.
The only thing people don’t give a shit about is your callous and nihilistic dismissal.
This might sound a bit ridiculous but this is what I think a lot of people's real positions on AI are.
And if we look at the players who are the winners in the AI race, do you see anyone particularly good participating?
I could obviously give you examples where LLMs have concrete usecases but that's besides the larger point.
Can you explain why I should not be equally suspicious of gaming, social media, movies, carnivals, travel?
> My position on things like this is that if enough people use a service, I must defer to their judgement that they benefit from it.
Enough people doing something doesn't make that something good or desirable from a societal standpoint. You can find examples of things that go in both directions. You mentioned gaming, social media, movies, carnivals, travel, but you can just as easily ask the same question for gambling or heavy drugs use.
Just saying "I defer to their judgment" is a cop-out.
What became toxic was, arguably, the way in which it was monetized and never really regulated.
(By way of reminder, the question here is about the harms of LLMs specifically to the people using them, so I'm going to ignore e.g. people losing their jobs because their bosses thought an LLM could replace them, possible environmental costs, having the world eaten by superintelligent AI systems that don't need humans any more, use of LLMs to autogenerate terrorist propaganda or scam emails, etc.)
People become like those they spend time with. If a lot of people are spending a lot of time with LLMs, they are going to become more like those LLMs. Maybe only in superficial ways (perhaps they increase their use of the word "delve" or the em-dash or "it's not just X, it's Y" constructions), maybe in deeper ways (perhaps they adapt their _personalities_ to be more like the ones presented by the LLMs). In an individual isolated case, this might be good or bad. When it happens to _everyone_ it makes everyone just a bit more similar to one another, which feels like probably a bad thing.
Much of the point of an LLM as opposed to, say, a search engine is that you're outsourcing not just some of your remembering but some of your thinking. Perhaps widespread use of LLMs will make people mentally lazier. People are already mostly very lazy mentally. This might be bad for society.
People tend to believe what LLMs tell them. LLMs are not perfectly reliable. Again, in isolation this isn't particularly alarming. (People aren't perfectly reliable either. I'm sure everyone reading this believes at least one untrue thing that they believe because some other person said it confidently.) But, again, when large swathes of the population are talking to the same LLMs which make the same mistakes, that could be pretty bad.
Everything in the universe tends to turn into advertising under the influence of present-day market forces. There are less-alarming ways for that to happen with LLMs (maybe they start serving ads in a sidebar or something) and more-alarming ways: maybe companies start paying OpenAI to manipulate their models' output in ways favourable to them. I believe that in many jurisdictions "subliminal advertising" in movies and television is illegal; I believe it's controversial whether it actually works. But I suspect something similar could be done with LLMs: find things associated with your company and train the LLM to mention them more often and with more positive associations. If it can be done, there's a good chance that eventually it will be. Ewww.
All the most capable LLMs run in the cloud. Perhaps people will grow dependent on them, and then the companies providing them -- which are, after all, mostly highly unprofitable right now -- decide to raise their prices massively, to a point at which no one would have chosen to use them so much at the outset. (But at which, having grown dependent on the LLMs, they continue using them.)
I do agree about ads, it will be extremely worrying if ads bias the LLM. I don't agree about the monopoly part, we already have ways of dealing with monopolies.
In general, I think the "AI is the worst thing ever" concerns are overblown. There are some valid reasons to worry, but overall I think LLMs are a massively beneficial technology.
Getting worse at mental arithmetic because of having calculators didn't matter much because calculators are just unambiguously better at arithmetic than we are, and if you always have one handy (which these days you effectively do) then overall you're better at arithmetic than if you were better at doing it in your head but didn't have a calculator. (Though, actually, calculators aren't quite unambiguously better because it takes a little bit of extra time and effort to use one, and if you can't do easy arithmetic in your head then arguably you have lost something.)
If thinking-atrophy due to LLMs turns out to be OK in the same way as arithmetic-atrophy due to calculators has, it will be because LLMs are just unambiguously better at thinking than we are. That seems to me (a) to be a scenario in which those exotic doomy risks become much more salient and (b) like a bigger thing to be losing from our lives than arithmetic. Compare "we will have lost an important part of what it is to be human if we never do arithmetic any more" (absurd) with "we will have lost an important part of what it is to be human if we never think any more" (plausible, at least to me).
[1] I don't see how one can reasonably put less than 50% probability on AI getting to clearly-as-smart-as-humans-overall level in the next decade, or less than 10% probability on AI getting clearly-much-smarter-than-humans-overall soon after if it does, or less than 10% probability on having things much smarter than humans around not causing some sort of catastrophe, all of which means a minimum 0.5% chance of AI-induced catastrophe in the not-too-distant future. And those estimates look to me like they're on the low side.
(Maybe no longer needing the skill of thinking would be fine! Maybe what happens then is that people who like thinking can go on thinking, and people who don't like thinking and were already pretty bad at it outsource their thinking to AI systems that do it better, and everything's OK. But don't you think it sounds like the sort of transformation where if someone described it and said "... what could possibly go wrong?" you would interpret that as sarcasm? It doesn't seem like the sort of future where we could confidently expect that it would all be fine.)
People find a benefit in smoking: a little kick, they feel cool, it’s a break from work, it’s socializing, maybe they feel rebellious.
The point is that people FEEL they benefit. THAT’S the market for many things. Not everything obv, but plenty of things.
I don't disagree, but this also doesn't mean that those things are intrinsically good and then we should all pursuit them because that's what the market wants. And that was what I was pushing against, this idea that since 800M people are using GPT then we should all be ok doing AI work because that's what the market is demanding.
When billions of people watch football, my first instinct is not to decry football as a problem in society. I acknowledge with humility that though I don't enjoy it, there is something to the activity that makes people watch it.
Agree. And that something could be a positive or a negative thing. And I'm not suggesting I know better than them. I'm suggesting that humans are not perfect machines and our brains are very easy to manipulate.
Because there are plenty of examples of things enjoyed by a lot of people who are, as a whole, bad. And they might not be bad for the individuals who are doing them, they might enjoy them, and find pleasure in them. But that doesn't make them desirable and also doesn't mean we should see them as market opportunities.
Drugs and alcohol are the easy example:
> A new report from the World Health Organization (WHO) highlights that 2.6 million deaths per year were attributable to alcohol consumption, accounting for 4.7% of all deaths, and 0.6 million deaths to psychoactive drug use. [...] The report shows an estimated 400 million people lived with alcohol use disorders globally. Of this, 209 million people lived with alcohol dependence. (https://www.who.int/news/item/25-06-2024-over-3-million-annu...)
Can we agree that 3 million people dying as a result of something is not a good outcome? If the reports were saying that 3 million people a year are dying as a result of LLM chats we'd all be freaking out.
–––
> my first instinct is not to decry football as a problem in society.
My first instinct is not to decry nothing as a problem, not as a positive. My first instinct is to give ourselves time to figure out which one of the two it is before jumping in head first. Which is definitely not what's happening with LLMs.
- gaming
- netflix
- television
- social media
- hacker news
- music in general
- carnivals
A priori, all of these are equally suspicious as to whether they provide value or not.
My point is that unless you have reason to suspect, people engaging in consumption through their own agency is in general preferable. You can of course bring counter examples but they are more of caveats against my larger truer point.
And today's adapt or die doesn't sound less fascist than in 1930.
This was you interpreting what the parent post was saying. I'm similarly providing a value judgement that you are doing a maximalist AI dismissal. We are not that different.
Maybe the only difference between us is that I think there is a difference between a description and an interpretation, and you don't :)
In the grand scheme of things, is it even worth mentioning? Probably not! :D :D Why focus on the differences when we can focus on the similarities?
>Ok change my qualifier from interpretation to description if it helps.
I... really don't think AI is what's wrong with you.
If not, for the purpose of paying his bills, your giving a shit is irrelevant. That’s what I mean.
Yes.
I'm not going to be childish and dunk on you for having to update your priors now, but this is exactly the problem with this speaking in aphorisms and glib dismissals. You don't know anyone here, you speak in authoritative tone for others, and redefine what "matters" and what is worthy of conversation as if this is up to you.
> Don’t write a blog post whining about your morals,
why on earth not?
I wrote a blog post about a toilet brush. Can the man write a blog post about his struggle with morality and a changing market?
So is it rational for a web design company to take a moral stance that they won't use JavaScript?
Is there a market for that, with enough clients who want their JavaScript-free work?
Are there really enough companies that morally hate JavaScript enough to hire them, at the expense of their web site's usability and functionality, and their own users who aren't as laser focused on performatively not using JavaScript and letting everyone know about it as they are?
Put differently, is "the market" shaped by the desires of consumers, or by the machinations of producers?
Where are you going to draw the line? Only if it effects you, or maybe we should go back to using coal for everything, so the mineworkers have their old life back? Or maybe follow the Amish guidelines to ban all technology that threatens sense of community?
If you are going to draw a line, you'll probably have to start living in small communities, as AI as a technology is almost impossible to stop. There will be people and companies using it to it's fullest, even if you have laws to ban it, other countries will allow it.
The same could be said of social media for which I think the aggregate bad has been far greater than the aggregate good (though there has certainly been some good sprinkled in there).
I think the same is likely to be true of "AI" in terms of the negative impact it will have on the humanistic side of people and society over the next decade or so.
However like social media before it I don't know how useful it will be to try to avoid it. We'll all be drastically impacted by it through network effects whether we individually choose to participate or not and practically speaking those of us who still need to participate in society and commerce are going to have to deal with it, though that doesn't mean we have to be happy about it.
Not really. Or at least, "just be happy" isn't a good response to someone homeless and jobless.
Yes, absolutely.
Just because it's monopolized by evil people doesn't mean it's inherently bad. In fact, mots people here have seen examples of it done in a good way.
Like this very website we're on, proving the parent's point in fact.
I don't know if HN 2025 has been a good example of "in a good way".
It won't be as hard as you think for HN to slip into the very thing they mock Instagram of today for being.
Yup, story of my life. I have on fact had a dozen different times where I chose not to jump off the cliff with peers. How little I realized back then how rare that quality is.
But you got your answer, feel free to follow the crowd. I already have migrations ready. Again, not my first time.
The goal of AI is NOT to be a tool. It's to replace human labor completely.
This means 100% of economic value goes to capital, instead of labor. Which means anyone that doesn't have sufficient capital to live off the returns just starves to death.
To avoid that outcome requires a complete rethinking of our economic system. And I don't think our institutions are remotely prepared for that, assuming the people runnign them care at all.
AI wouldn't fall into that bucket, it wouldn't be driven entirely by the human at the wheel.
I'm not sold yet whether LLMs are AI, my gut says no and I haven't been convinced yet. We can't lose the distinction between ML and AI though, its extremely important when it comes to risk considerations.
Machine learning isn't about developing anything intelligent at all, its about optimizing well defined problem spaces for algorithms defined by humans. Intelligence is much more self guided and has almost nothing to do with finding the best approximate solution to a specific problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning
You are free to define AI differently but don't be surprised if people don't share your unique definition.
How about we start with "commercial LLMs cannot give Legal, Medical, or Financial advice" and go from there? LLMs for those businesses need to be handled by those who can be held accountable (be it the expert or the CEO of that expert).
I'd go so far to try and prevent the obvious and say "LLM's cannot be used to advertise product". but baby steps.
>AI as a technology is almost impossible to stop.
Not really a fan of defeatism speak. Tech isn't as powerful as billionaire want you to pretend it is. It can indeed be regulated, we just need to first use our civic channels instead of fighting amongst ourselves.
Of course, if you are profiting off of AI, I get it. Gotta defend your paycheck.
It will be, of course, but only until all human competition in those fields is eliminated. And after that, all those billions invested must be recouped back by making the prices skyrocket. Didn't we see that with e.g. Uber?
You not liking something on purportedly "moral" grounds doesn't matter if it works better than something else.
According to the logic of your argument, it's perfectly okay to drive a 360t BelAZ 75710 loaded to its full 450t capacity over that bridge just because it's a truck too.
Guess you mmissed the post where lawyers were submitting legal documents generated by LLM's. Or people taking medical advice and ending up with hyperbromium consumptions. Or the lawsuits around LLM's softly encouraging suicide. Or the general AI psychosis being studied.
It's way past "some exceptions" at this point.
Removing all personal responsibility from this equation isn't going to solve anything.
That argument is rather naive, given that millenia of law is meant to regulate and disincentivize behavior. "If people didn't get mad they wouldn't murder!"
We've regulated public messages for decades, and for good reason. I'm not absolving them this time because they want to hide behind a chatbot. They have blood on their hands.
But you may indeed be vying against your best interests. Hope you can take some time to understand where you lie in life and if your society is really benefiting you.
For instance I work for one of the companies that produces some of the most popular LLMs in use today. And I certainly have a stake in them performing well and being useful.
But your line of reasoning would have us believe that Henry Ford is a mass murderer due to the number of vehicular deaths each year, or that the wright brothers bear some responsibility for 9/11. They should have foreseen that people would fly their planes into buildings, of course.
If you want to blame someone for LLMs hurting people, we really need to go all the way back to Alan Turing -- without him these people would still be alive!
Okay, cool. Note that I never asked for your opinion and you decided to pop up in this chain as I was talking to someone else. Go about your day or be curious, but don't butt in then pretend 'well I don't care what you say' when you get a response back.
Nothing you said contradicted my main point. So this isn't really a conversation but simply more useless defense. Good day.
Didn't think that would go so cleanly over your head given you're all the way up there on your high horse of morality.
You don't see how botched law case can't cost someone their life? Let's not wait until more die to reign this in.
>Someone could search on Google just the same and ignore their symptoms.
Yes, and it's not uncommon for websites or search engines to be sued. Millenia of laws exist for this exact purpose, so companies can't deflect bad things back to the people.
If you want the benefits, you accept the consequences. Especially when you fail to put up guard rails.
Opioids work better than anything else at removing the sensation of pain. There are, of course, drawbacks to pumping everyone full of opioids in unlimited doses, and not cracking down on the rampant systemic fraud that enabled this. Opioids in reasonably-prescribed amounts are a godsend to people in serious pain.
So let's all just give zero fucks about our moral values and just multiply monetary ones.