You can't prove a negative.
You're asking for the impossible.
You're stating something impossible to prove and asking us to accept it on faith. Again, it is your claim so it is on you to prove it. It looks like you are saying here that it is impossible for you to prove support for your claim.
It's on people like you, who are promoting GenAI, claiming it's inevitable, to say that there is a societal benefit, that it does benefit people.
Such as the weather prediction that benefits people and the environment? Thanks, you reminded me that we already have examples where what you are saying is incorrect.
So far we've seen no benefit to people in general, only tremendous and increasing harms.
Disproven above.
Elon Musk is busily using GenAI to generate CSAM in public, and when confronted about it, did he stop that? No. He merely limited who can generate CSAM. Is that the societal benefit you're envisioning?
Again, you are confusing a tool for the uses the tool is put towards. I've seen horror movies where a chainsaw is used to attack people. That has nothing to do with making the chainsaw inherently bad, just the use that particular person is doing with it.
If your argument was "Yeah GenAI is no good, but you can't do anything about it", I could accept that as a somewhat valid (at least in the sense that I could understand how one would believe it) if defeatist argument. But your argument is that there is some benefit,
Because, as shows, it has had benefits like the weather prediction. That's not disputable unless you are willing to ignore facts.
and that it's more than merely the force that is, quite frankly, going to end civilization via climate destruction and making everything anyone says or does into a lie or suspected of being a lie. It's hacking at the tree that holds up society, frankly.
I agree with the second part -- with deepfake videos and swarms of AI social media bots the tool is being used by some to attack, undermine, or reshape our beliefs and what we think is true. Our critique and evaluation of sources will have to grow, and it already has begun among many. "Seeing is believing" is now outdated.
And again, none of that is inherent in the tool, it's how it's being used by people. Can people abuse a tool? Absolutely. Is this a tool where money can give you more access to it which can lead to bigger abuses? Sure, money can give you access to lots of tools that can be abused.
That doesn't convince me that it's going away. Nor that the tool within itself is inherently immoral and cannot also be used productively since we've factually have examples where it can.
