#til # [steveklabnik: I am disappointed in the AI discourse](https://steveklabnik.com/writing/i-am-disappointed-in-the-ai-discourse/) [Lobsters Discussion](https://lobste.rs/s/42qb2p/i_am_disappointed_ai_discourse) as well, which I think is a great demonstration of the problem. It's become very difficult to talk about AI coherently in the same way it's become impossible to talk about anything that seems remotely political in nature: you are forced to pick a side. The conversation thread between Steven and friendlysock brings up a lot of interesting thoughts > If you’re broadly progressive–in particular in the sense of supporting the poor and downtrodden–it’s difficult to ignore all of the accessibility benefits of AI for blind folks, deaf folks, folks that benefit from transcription and translation, and so on while still claiming to be true to your roots. > If you’re in support of bringing in new people to the field, removing roadblocks and arcane knowledge silos is something you’d reaosnably support, and that’s something that the current AI stuff seems to help with a lot...However, it also might remove the starter jobs those groups need. > I think that the “right side” of history right now is probably more AI for more people with more openness. I also suspect there’s a pile of ways that the “right side” could turn out to be wrong. And yes, as evidenced by the grifters and lazy, there are plenty of ways to be on the “right side” for the “wrong” reasons! Generally good throughout.