It’s tricky because like in so many other things, nuance is weaponized against the person using nuance.
A politician presents a carefully considered position? An opponent declares it’s impossible to know where they stand.
A broadly harmful thing has some potential value if we just pull back on the harmful part? People all-in will seize upon your acknowledgement of specific value as broad endorsement.
In the AI front, if OpenAI and xAI folds up, and maybe Anthropic gets a big dose of humility, and business leaders finally get a sense for what it can’t do, there’s a chance for a healthy and useful adoption. Right now the nuance isn’t as valuable because it advocates for a scale that no one would be objecting to anyway.
It’s also frustrating to engage in such conversations when trying to include nuance invites others to use the idea of a nuanced view to insert some insane, irrelevant argument.
It’s tricky because like in so many other things, nuance is weaponized against the person using nuance.
A politician presents a carefully considered position? An opponent declares it’s impossible to know where they stand.
A broadly harmful thing has some potential value if we just pull back on the harmful part? People all-in will seize upon your acknowledgement of specific value as broad endorsement.
In the AI front, if OpenAI and xAI folds up, and maybe Anthropic gets a big dose of humility, and business leaders finally get a sense for what it can’t do, there’s a chance for a healthy and useful adoption. Right now the nuance isn’t as valuable because it advocates for a scale that no one would be objecting to anyway.
It’s also frustrating to engage in such conversations when trying to include nuance invites others to use the idea of a nuanced view to insert some insane, irrelevant argument.