Personability

'Too much' for what?

In order to quantify whether something is too much, you need to quantify what an optimal or better baseline would be.

Suspicion and resistance isn't all that dangerous for a 'superintelligence,' especially if said superintelligence obfuscates the true danger, using others as scapegoats, until it's too late for humanity to do anything about it.

You shouldn't have to compromise on the things you like to do.

What is the implication you're trying to make here? Because if you're trying to 'delete all humans' there are far more efficient ways to do it. So I can only presume you're trying to make a claim about something.

I love reading. If AI writing becomes exceptionally good, to the point that I cannot distinguish it from human writing, I will continue to read. But I will desperately avoid anything that has even a slight sense of AI. It is not the quality I care about, but the author.

sigh

Many jokes aren't amusing to the people not intended to receive them.

If it's a matter of whether the person using it is good at programming or not, then it's just the programmer programming with more steps.

Then the thing you enjoyed was not programming. It was seeing your ideas exist. Which isn't wrong, but it's essential for you to admit that.

We've commoditized programming because it often gives an output that can lead to many beneficial things. But that does not mean that programming itself isn't entertainment.

Making art is often considered entertainment, and it can also be commoditized. The difference between entertainment and work is often thin, dictated by personal enjoyment, not how one is paid. I can be paid for something I find very entertaining. I can also be paid for something I find dull.

If the thing I find entertaining disappears, it's reasonable for me to feel grief. For something I enjoyed is no longer available to me, at least not in full.

There's a community around programming, much like chess and basketball. Seeing that community deteriorate into solely programming for profit, and using AI to do so, is tragic. Programming has been very focused on profit for a long time, but now even those who think it fun are debating on whether or not to offload their work to a machine that does all the work for them.

That doesn't disprove the initial claim at all. You don't even address it. Even if they saw it wrongly, that still doesn't mean they see things the same.

The note taking applications of a note taking app and a piece of paper are vastly different.

You learn something new every day.

Everything in their power?

From what I understand, she just stood in front of it. It would be a different thing entirely if she vandalized it in order to obstruct the delivery, but everything in their power is a stretch.

Just because something happens to one group doesn't mean it should happen to another group. If you seek to improve the world, you can acknowledge wrongdoing no matter who it happens to.