AI is a tool. A Glock 9mm is a tool. A paintbrush is a tool.
Tools are only as good, or as harmful, as their users. If AI is being used to flood the internet with slop, that is a human decision. The fact that AI was used to generate the slop does not taint the AI itself in any meaningful way.
On this platform, however, it is fashionable to hate AI.
The people who hate it here are either bad actors or have no real understanding of what AI is, what it does, or what it is for.
This is pretty close to how I think about it. AI (notably not generative) that was developed to sort bread and now is reprogrammed to detect cancer cells: Fantastic. Generative AI to search and cite multiple interacting manuals with thousands of pages each: probably ok with significant guardrails. Generative AI that drives up local electricity costs so someone can see their underage neighbor with 4 boobs: terrible. To extend your metaphor it’s like handing a glock to a toddler.
I completely agree with your statements the data centers are definitely a massive issue however to be fair they are a response to the growing use of AI. These are just for-profit corporations looking for a way to make more profit. The cost of constructing the data centers is significantly cheaper than the amount of money that they would make in the long run.
A tool is any human-designed object that extends our ability to perform a task. That is the functional definition. Moral weight does not enter into the classification.
By that definition, a gun is unambiguously a tool.
A gun is engineered to apply controlled force at a distance. Humans use it for specific purposes: hunting animals for food, self-defense, deterrence, sport shooting, and as an instrument of the state via military and law enforcement. In every case, intent, judgment, and responsibility reside entirely with the human operator. The object itself has no agency, will, or decision-making capability.
People often confuse what a tool can be used for with what a tool is. That confusion leads to emotional objections rather than logical ones. A scalpel cuts flesh. A chainsaw destroys wood. A nail gun can kill a person. None of those facts remove them from the category of “tool.” Harm potential does not negate tool status; it simply increases the responsibility of the user.
This is directly analogous to AI. AI applies computation. A paintbrush applies pigment. A gun applies force. Different domains, same underlying principle: they are instruments that amplify human capability. If someone uses AI to generate spam, or a gun to commit violence, the fault lies with the human actor, not the instrument.
If we redefine “tool” to exclude objects we are uncomfortable with, the definition collapses into incoherence. The correct framework is not to anthropomorphize tools, but to hold users accountable for how they are employed.
That is why a gun is a tool, not philosophically, but functionally and unambiguously.
I see that you are okay with that as long it fits by definition, regardless the harm that some tools can cause. Thanks god U.S. abolished slavery. Cheers.
AI is a tool. A Glock 9mm is a tool. A paintbrush is a tool.
Tools are only as good, or as harmful, as their users. If AI is being used to flood the internet with slop, that is a human decision. The fact that AI was used to generate the slop does not taint the AI itself in any meaningful way. On this platform, however, it is fashionable to hate AI.
The people who hate it here are either bad actors or have no real understanding of what AI is, what it does, or what it is for.
This is pretty close to how I think about it. AI (notably not generative) that was developed to sort bread and now is reprogrammed to detect cancer cells: Fantastic. Generative AI to search and cite multiple interacting manuals with thousands of pages each: probably ok with significant guardrails. Generative AI that drives up local electricity costs so someone can see their underage neighbor with 4 boobs: terrible. To extend your metaphor it’s like handing a glock to a toddler.
I completely agree with your statements the data centers are definitely a massive issue however to be fair they are a response to the growing use of AI. These are just for-profit corporations looking for a way to make more profit. The cost of constructing the data centers is significantly cheaper than the amount of money that they would make in the long run.
Why or how a gun is a tool?
A tool is any human-designed object that extends our ability to perform a task. That is the functional definition. Moral weight does not enter into the classification. By that definition, a gun is unambiguously a tool. A gun is engineered to apply controlled force at a distance. Humans use it for specific purposes: hunting animals for food, self-defense, deterrence, sport shooting, and as an instrument of the state via military and law enforcement. In every case, intent, judgment, and responsibility reside entirely with the human operator. The object itself has no agency, will, or decision-making capability. People often confuse what a tool can be used for with what a tool is. That confusion leads to emotional objections rather than logical ones. A scalpel cuts flesh. A chainsaw destroys wood. A nail gun can kill a person. None of those facts remove them from the category of “tool.” Harm potential does not negate tool status; it simply increases the responsibility of the user. This is directly analogous to AI. AI applies computation. A paintbrush applies pigment. A gun applies force. Different domains, same underlying principle: they are instruments that amplify human capability. If someone uses AI to generate spam, or a gun to commit violence, the fault lies with the human actor, not the instrument. If we redefine “tool” to exclude objects we are uncomfortable with, the definition collapses into incoherence. The correct framework is not to anthropomorphize tools, but to hold users accountable for how they are employed. That is why a gun is a tool, not philosophically, but functionally and unambiguously.
I see that you are okay with that as long it fits by definition, regardless the harm that some tools can cause. Thanks god U.S. abolished slavery. Cheers.
Yes… I am ok if the definition defines the object… As anyone should be? Thank god Britain stopped trying to take over the world. Bye.