Any billionaire and millionaire stopping these things would be offset by the efforts of the rest of us. They can inflict more damage. It's pretty simple, pretty obvious, and blaming the general public when a change in their behavior wouldn't matter compared to a change in behavior from a gigantic entity is absurd.

Your example is like ...... missing the point by a million miles.

This completely depends on the person, their collective situations, and their outlook.

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't mean to come in hot like this was a debate or anything. This can be very hard. But yes, ultimately you can't let cynicism take over, because it's the death knell. Cynicism is to solidify your expectations as nothing. You won't be able to authentically interact with any humans after that.

You seem to be operating under the guise of being more realistic, but you are in fact centralized in offering no-solution arguments. Even if there were no solution, it's illogical not to try one because we can't predict the future, and not trying is literally the only way to ENSURE failure. Trying is not the road to failure. Cynicism is a complete dive into voluntary failure.

YOU have zero advocacy on these issues, and you're projecting it. I can't go a single day without seeing someone take concrete action related to that conflict. The reality that a world leader is the other side of that conflict, and that it's taking a little bit of time, doesn't mean progress is eternally impossible.

These were the actions of a select few people. The human race at large can absolutely outpace these efforts, that's not even up for debate. It's a cultural problem and as soon as we solve that, everything will improve. However, you seem to preclude this as being impossible, which is illogical given the numbers.

Kinda feels like that pales in comparison the the effect that cynicism has. When you lose your ability to trust others, you isolate, you gain less experiences, and ultimately you aren't a part of society anymore. Those folks shouldnt have the same effect on public policy that people who still have that ability to care have. In a community, the idea of "caring" becoming some sort of distorted lens is a very low risk. Checks and balances are prevalent.

Your intuition? You kinda just sound like you're being holier than thou. If you have researched AI, and know what it can do, then anyone else is capable of that as well. I don't know what trade you're in but it's not hard to do the research and understand the ethical risks of AI in our society and how it will launder existing societal biases deeper into our culture.

But without morality there is no "care", that's a moral act.

Your first sentence describes morality. The philosophical discussion of wether we should hurt other people is the moral dilemma. Wether you want to use other words or not, that's what it is.

You seem to just be struggling with what you define as moral just like every other human being.

So if I removed you from the earth because I perceive your amoral behavior as disruptive to the moral system, you'd clearly have no problem with that. Do you just act in your own self interest all the time? Do you have any relationships? Do you believe in treating other humans with respect?

No?

The risk, when it comes to AI, is it's linkage to these people. AI is a very dangerous arm of systemic racism, systemic sexism, white supremacy and . It's just a system for laundering the terrible biases we already exhibit into our daily lives even more under the guide of being unbiased. We can't ignore the problems AI will bring because it's an escalation of what we've already been dealing with.

That's extremely fair, but we can't use this as a reason to overlook the obvious carelessness on the venues part here. OP was a qualified professional attempting to help in a situation they obviously saw being handled terrible, not to mention a life at risk. Terrible situation but don't get on the OP for being pissed they couldn't help. I don't get the vibe they're trashing the EMTs already there.