To have a conversation requires not to shut it down

Come on guys, you must see that the purpose of the post was about what the author of the article thought. Not about what I thought of the matter! In such a case I would have just posted my opinion piece, not a link to someone else’s. Why should I provide “guidance” to what you all should think about it?

1 Like

Looking at the link and reading it, I thought it would’ve been a good off-topic discussion, but I have to agree that the title took it too far. I personally would’ve been fine with the post lacking original text, if the intent was solely to offer someone else’s opinion. The problem isn’t so much that there wasn’t a paragraph of original thoughts, that was just a suggested alternative to writing that title.

I think it’s inaccurate to frame that post as offering no original input or opinion, the title mildly insults people with opinions opposite to that of the author Naomi Klein and presumably the poster. That just invites a bitter angry discussion.

The title to my OP was a loose paraphrasing of the title of the linked article.

I disagree, Naomi Klein is calling the “makers” of AI delusional, though more accurately her article refers to corporations and their marketing, not the engineers in particular. “AI fanboys” is a completely different group of people that could very well be members of this forum. Even if it’s not your intent, it really is inflammatory. Imagine if someone titled their performance tips post “explain why this Julia code is slow, Julia fanboys”. See how the last two words turned a common productive beginner’s topic into an invitation for conflict?


This seems like the sort of conversation that the OP may have intended to bring up. We’re just discussing it in a different thread now.

This post was temporarily hidden by the community for possibly being off-topic, inappropriate, or spammy.

I have actually read the article before chiming in, and I quote “Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI – maker of ChatGPT”. I believe I was accurate in saying Klein’s article refers to corporations and their CEOs, as opposed to their users.

And now we’re done here, too.

We’ve had a conversation about why the thread was framed poorly, and I’ve explained the moderating decision. It’s not up for debate — framing a topic in such adversarial language is not productive. Doubling down on such adversarial language with sweeping gendered stereotypes is completely out of line.