Everyone pretty much hates it, its just here is one of the few places online where money and stupidity can’t be waved around frantically to hide that.
Lemmy is unusual in that it has a large portion of users who actually understand the underlying technologies in “AI” branded products. Most forums with a more typical audience do not have that.
We are a self-selected group of tech-savvy ideological refugees. That’s why I stay, I can learn things every day from lemmy. So i think the only thing different here is that many fuckai posts/comments have a factual and germane basis.
“self selected group of ideological refugees” describes the Fedis really well.
We are a self-selected group of tech-savvy ideological refugees.
Which does include dbzer0’s explicit rejection of copyright as a source of criticism.
The FuckAI crowd treats this like a settled matter, and they’re shocked whenever someone lacks a kneejerk negative response. Artists have been harassed into deleting posts when they thought animating their own paintings might be neat.
It’s a moral panic. We must not do thing, because thing is the devil!, and anyone who so much as shrugs is doing the devil’s work.
Lemmy understands the technology well enough that we should be able to geek out over this whole new kind of software, independent of hating the corporate bastards who foist it upon everyone.
Yeah, people get super jerky sometimes. It’s easy to get frustrated when contending in vain against stupidity.
However, if someone, say you maybe, were to make a post that presented a nuanced view of where these technologies are useful and how they are being misapplied, lemmy is one place where you could get a super productive discussion going.
When the community is called ‘fuckai’ or similar, the deck is stacked against a good discussion happening.
One can rail against reactionary behavior but that is reactionary behavior!
It is hard to ‘be the change one wants to see’ but it’s really the only thing one can do. I know I often try to be that change, but I get lazy too and it’s so easy to make fun of tech bros.
However, if someone, say you maybe, were to make a post that presented a nuanced view of where these technologies are useful and how they are being misapplied, lemmy is one place where you could get a super productive discussion going.
This has not been my general experience on the Fediverse. I’m in a thread over on a games community right now explaining in detail how I make use of AI when putting together tabletop roleplaying adventures for my friends, as the most recent example, and I’m getting a ton of people downvoting me and telling me my friends secretly don’t like me or have “Stockholm syndrome” or whatever.
I have been getting upvotes in the mix too, though, so I’ll keep on explaining my various use cases and pointing out various good tools. The tide does seem to be ever so slowly shifting.
I understand and have analogous experiences presenting nuanced details to support one position or another. That’s the crappy part about open forums, they are open and much of the audience won’t or can’t give any attention to the arguments you make.
Your experience also shows that part of the audience does pay attention, however.
The only thing that helps me keep trying to learn and teach things important to me is managing my own expectations about what I expect to happen when I expound online.
I am setting myself up for certain disappointment if I don’t admit most won’t even read the words, some will have an emotional reaction and go off on their own tangent, and a few, a very few, may engage in a way that helps me learn more, too.
Most of my professional experience is in ‘science’ and R&D. You have to learn (at least) two completely different communication styles in these fields.
In a closed community of specialists, you need easy access to all the details as well as clear presentation of the grander vision that motivates the work.
In a more general setting, soundbites and punchy anecdotes are more persuasive. Too much detail brings out the cranks, who then generate so much noise your message gets lost.
In summary, if you really want people to hear you and engage with your ideas, I have learned:
Be extremely clear with yourself about your intended audience.
Be clear with yourself what results you can reasonably expect from that audience.
Brace yourself to just ignore the distracting peanut gallery, not every reply needs a response. Only engage with substantive replies that appear to be good faith.
Be prepared to have your mind changed too.
I hate the greedy cynical corporations behind LLMs, and I hate the hype bubble, and I hate my stupid bosses and their AI FOMO. But I don’t hate AI. It’s a broad concept much bigger than chat bots. Hurricane modeling AI is damned good, for one example.
Pressure to shove LLMs into everything because it convinced a bunch of vapid know-nothing middle managers and C-suite knobs it was “alive” and that their stock options would skyrocket has unfortunately poisoned the well of “AI”.
But yes, purpose-built ML models that are amazing and useful. And almost no one, in the grand scheme of things, is using them.
purpose-built ML models that are amazing and useful. And almost no one […] is using them
They are in fact everywhere. We just don’t advertise their presence because no one cares. This stuff also goes by different names in different fields because people keep reinventing the wheel.
The funny thing is, LLMs can be useful for exactly one thing: certain kinds of linguistic tasks. For example, if you were inventing a fictional language, it’s probably pretty good for that.
But using it as a general-purpose problem solving tool is beyond stupid.
They used them to play chess on kaggle, then the press reported the winner 😂
The obsession is so baffling to anyone who’s worked in ML (including language model researchers!)
They are being used in science and medicine. We just don’t hear about them as often.
Because they don’t talk to you, so you can’t be “vibe coding on the edge of reality” or whatever stupid shit it was that one of the AI CEOs said.
Everyone pretty much hates it
Do you have a source on that? Because I personally doubt that’s really the case. Most people probably have mild feelings about it one way or the other, but I doubt it extends as strongly as hate for the vast majority.
Everybody hates it but like 40 million people are paying for ChatGPT which can be used for free.
I dislike the implementation of a lot of AI.
I pretty much only come across them when I need support for something, and I’m good at searching the sites for info before I go to the support. This means that the AI only gives me answers that I’ve already seen and that doesn’t work - they always waste my time.
I am also a frequent visitor of subreddits like r/askphysics, and the amount of nonsense that comes up because the AI that people asked doesn’t understand what it is saying isn’t helping with my perception either. I much prefer using a search engine instead, because they don’t hallucinate answers and I can validate the content of the page based on a lot of leads that you don’t get if an AI copies the answer and rephrases it.
There are a lot of places where AI can be a very good tool to implement, but those are not LLM related. It can for instance be used for getting CNC machines to better correct for thermal expansion in different parts of the machine, based on the temperature and humidity of the environment, runtime, and other info like that, so more accurate machining can be achieved.
I really don’t need AI in my coffee machine or toaster though. I strongly suspect that those are just data harvesters.
Does “everyone” hate AI? I am regularly baffled by people apparently feeding every question that pops into their minds to ChatGPT.
As detailed in a new study published in the Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, researchers presented 1,000 respondents with questions and descriptions of products. Surprisingly — or perhaps not, depending on your perspective — they found that products described as using AI were consistently less popular.
“When AI is mentioned, it tends to lower emotional trust, which in turn decreases purchase intentions,” said lead author and Washington State University clinical assistant profess of marketing Mesut Cicek in a statement. “We found emotional trust plays a critical role in how consumers perceive AI-powered products.”
https://futurism.com/the-byte/study-consumers-turned-off-products-ai
A Washington State University and Temple University study, published in the Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management and also cited in The Wall Street Journal, titled “Adverse impacts of revealing the presence of ‘Artificial Intelligence (AI)’ technology in product and service descriptions on purchase intentions: the mediating role of emotional trust and the moderating role of perceived risk”, concludes what seems like common sense to many of us: when a company announces that a product is AI-powered, consumers tend to distrust it more and as a result are less inclined to buy it.
https://medium.com/enrique-dans/why-ai-powered-products-are-backfiring-with-consumers-a868bff518b0
If one listens casually to the discourse around generative AI today, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that everyone is clamoring for more AI capabilities and can’t wait to use them in their daily lives. But a recent ZDNET/Aberdeen survey into AI assistants shows a clear disconnect between how much vendors are pushing AI assistants and how much users actually want these capabilities – at least for now.
…
When asked if they would stop using a product if they couldn’t turn off or remove AI assistant features, 31% said they would stop using that product (including 28% of Gen Z), with an additional 38% saying they might. With these results, one can even see that for a significant segment of users, AI assistants could actually be a negative when it comes to gaining or retaining customers.
…I would say yes that is a reasonable generalization, not everybody hates AI but to say it is majority popular is a massive stretch.
You are describing AI integrated into other products. Pretty sure lots of people like using chatgpt to answer their questions or AI inage generators to make extremely niche porn.
Time to update this sketch
Every time at work “I asked Gemini and here’s what it said…” No. Shut the fuck up.
Do you realize that social media is a bubble, and whenever you see that “everyone thinks the way I do” it’s likely a result of you having become isolated among a self-selected group of like-minded individuals?
If “everyone pretty much hates it”, why did chatgpt.com become the fifth-most-visited website in existence?
If “everyone pretty much hates it”, why did chatgpt.com become the fifth-most-visited website in existence?
AI bot traffic.
Yeah I’ve never been there. I’ve been to others, but I’ve never been there.
Is that a song? It feels quite close to the song.
Kinda got that “I would do anything for love but I won’t do that” from Meatloaf vibe.
Side note; it really sucks watching him become a hateful bigot considering his audience is like 80% lbgtqia peeps
And does that AI bot traffic not hit all the other sites too? Not trying to be a dick. Occams razer. Sometimes it’s not a conspiracy and things really are as they seem.
Using bots to drive up the traffic of your site is stupidly common, has been a thing even before LLMs, and does not require driving up traffic to every site on the internet. 🤦♂️
Very true but if you look at the top 10 sites online I bet they’re all propping up their traffic metrics with bots which means to some extent it becomes a moot point. Anecdotally in the real world I see the use of AI very prevalent which lends to the fact that it is widespread and universally adopted despite what the bubble here says.
pfft.🤭 You are aware Colleges are sponsoring the bubble too, right?
Because unbelievable amounts of money have been devoted to making AI seem inveitable while these same companies have deeply enshittified traditional search engines?
Because people used to really buy into the hype of computers and a Silicon Valley sense of excitement about possibility?
Big tech is currently brutally strip mining our optimism with one of these earth strippers as if it didn’t leave a barren wasteland behind and wasn’t utterly unsustainable.
It isn’t because ChatGPT is making money that is for sure.
We can be anticapitalists, and still comprehend people love the idea of an extortionist sycophant that answers your every whim and curiosity.
Tis why djinns, fae, and Dolus exists in folklore.
Maybe get off your personal bubble, touch grass, and talk to normies.
Far fewer people hate AI in the general population as a percentage than on Lemmy. Your average person either doesn’t care or has found it useful in some way.
Almost all of the people I know hold it in disdain. It’s not good at doing anything and the costs are very high.
“Everyone I know” is a very selective group. People tend to gravitate toward other people who share their beliefs and interests.
Ok, where is your quantified (not anecdotal) data backing that up?
Where’s yours? You just claimed that EVERYONE hates AI. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. There’s use cases where it makes some sense, some where it doesn’t. There’s people who use it for everything, people who use it occasionally and people who avoid it like the plague.
Ok I already posted some elsewhere in this thread but here is some more evidence.
Furthermore, majorities of adults under 30 say the increased use of AI in society will make people worse at thinking creatively (61%) and forming meaningful relationships with other people (58%). In comparison, about four-in-ten adults ages 65 and older say AI will make people worse in these areas.
In two preregistered studies (n = 2,280), we presented participants with scenarios of patients obtaining medical advice. All participants received identical information, but we manipulated the putative source of this advice (‘AI’, ‘human physician’, ‘human + AI’). ‘AI’- and ‘human + AI’-labeled advice was evaluated as significantly less reliable and less empathetic compared with ‘human’-labeled advice. Moreover, participants indicated lower willingness to follow the advice when AI was believed to be involved in advice generation. Our findings point toward an anti-AI bias when receiving digital medical advice, even when AI is supposedly supervised by physicians. Given the tremendous potential of AI for medicine, elucidating ways to counteract this bias should be an important objective of future research.
This is evidence for a different message. Sorry, but that’s neither a proof for ‘everbody’ nor ‘hates AI’.
Ok where is your evidence?
My only claim was that it’s not black and white. And even the chart you posted yourself proofs me right with that. It lists four disciplines. Some of them seem to resonate better with AI than others and while the participants overall see higher negative effects, there are also those who see it as an improvement. And in case of those who stated that AI will make certain things worse, it doesn’t mean that they hate it. There are many things I dislike, but much fewer things I actually hate.
Espcially if you argue with scientific studies, you should be as precise as possible. My advise to you would be to be a bit more nuanced and differentiated with your claims. But up to you of course.
OP posted this on an instance that supports AI. It really doesn’t get more cognitive dissonant than that. If e doesn’t want to address the community instance supports for AI, I am afraid e won’t read nuance and shades of opinions. I gave mines out as an anarchist 🧵, and OP downvoted without reflecting.
Ignore that person. He randomly goes around yelping ‘misinformation’ and posting completely off-topic data on posts. (Check my history. He/She has a reading impediment or something.)
There’s a gradient that goes from legitimate damning criticism of corporate behavior, to vaguely defensible moralizing against the technology itself, to identarian chest-beating as ingroup performance. “Everyone pretty much hates it” is quietly on the far end.
Plenty of folks vocally despise the robot that almost does what you ask. There’s an order of magnitude more people who do not give a shit. Maybe they’ll be swayed by yet another video of Hank Green yelling at the camera. Maybe they’ll skim this month’s Ed Zitron novella reiterating the world’s most obvious bubble. Maybe they’ll become one of those folks going ‘Ugh, AI! Right fellas?’ and glancing around for approval. But they’ll still be vastly outnumbered by the people who see the program do the thing and merely think ‘Neat.’
But they’ll still be vastly outnumbered by the people who see the program do the thing and merely think ‘Neat.’
I think this category is shrinking much faster than the AI ingroup thinks, and most people are moving from this group to the group that defines AI as an adjective that means “shitty and trying to manipulate you while being utterly unhelpful and wasting your time”.
It is honestly disorienting that techbros are oblivious to this, especially for kids the meaning of AI in their lives is quickly becoming “the shitty sloppy thing”.
Things are at a point where if I walk around on the street and ask random people to “Behave like AI” I am confident most people would start doing shitty interpretations of human behavior with weird glitches and fundamental hallucinations about the basis of the conversation.
This is not what winning looks like for AI…
There is no AI ingroup here. Not a soul on Lemmy will argue spicy autocomplete is-too AGI. But like expanding the word “slop” from the worst nonsense to literally any use, you label anyone who disagrees an oblivious techbro. ‘You hate it with us or you’re one of them’ is effective recruiting for a tribalist movement. But it’s not an argument.
You can ask randos to “behave like robots” and they’ll do jerky motions and harsh voices. They’re not gonna follow up with ‘Haha, anyway, let’s destroy all machinery.’ Joking about when Siri misheard you didn’t start the Butlerian jihad.
Ask people what they’ve done with this. Will it match the cocaine fantasies of Sam Altman? Of fucking course not. But you’ll find people who recognized value in this slightly stupid science fiction. The guy who built a two-billion-frame-per-second camera took jabs at the model which wrote all his code - but he still used the thing to do the thing. I was surprised to hear him mention it at all, because y’all have made it such an identity razor, people hesitate to admit when it’s worked.
Even talking in terms of winning or losing is deeply conservative. It’s software. And it will at least half-ass a bewildering variety of tasks, just by asking, in plain English. You can describe video into existence, and there’s an overconfident minority who think that’s completely useless, because its wine glasses are half-full.
Do you remember when people hated CGI? Not bad uses. Any uses. Pointing it out became criticism. Now it’s just another tool. If anyone’s still mad that How To Train Your Dragon didn’t rely on puppets, and turns to go ‘Right fellas?,’ the fellas are long gone.
Do you remember when people hated CGI? Not bad uses. Any uses. Pointing it out became criticism. Now it’s just another tool. If anyone’s still mad that How To Train Your Dragon didn’t rely on puppets, and turns to go ‘Right fellas?,’ the fellas are long gone.
… have you never talked to fans of movies and tv shows?
Outside of self-selected back-patting subforums, none of them think computer animation is what ruined Wish. Nobody gets mad about the special effects that work. Not anymore. That kneejerk response has vanished, even though the tech is more common than ever.
Absolute opposition used to be so widespread and vocal that it felt universal. Now nobody really gives a shit.
my parents were against animation and it felt unfair to me growing up that i couldnt watch animated shows :(
Right, any use of “nobody” has an implicit asterisk over the fact some people are nuts.
I think this category is shrinking much faster than the AI ingroup thinks, and most people are moving from this group to the group that defines AI as an adjective that means “shitty and trying to manipulate you while being utterly unhelpful and wasting your time”
Yesterday, my 7yo criticized something by saying it looked like AI.
I remember trying really hard to learn to draw for like 10 years and just not being able to. Now I can make fun visuals :)
Yet, simultaneously, I will never get a windows 12 or let my windows 11 connect to the internet because I don’t want microsoft forcing it’s ai on me, eating my data, stealing my info, and controlling my system against my will for their own clearly profitbased predatory motives.
Also I have made 100s of songs without ai, and now I have some beautiful ai songs and ALSO many songs that have both ai and my own stuff. For me it’s an absolutely beautiful symbiosis resulting in lovely things. But I’m not a struggling artist trying to live on streaming revenue fighting ai dilution of the market for streams and being filled with hate from it. I just make music for myself, those who i want to hear it, and because it’s beautiful.
I don’t use chatGPT at all cuz I think SamAltman is worthless predatory trash.
So idk. There are many ai I think are terrible and avoid. There are some ai I genuinely enjoy and selectively use. I know I wouldn’t have the cool pics and songs I do without ai.
intermission
I subconsciously look down on people using ai to code who then have to ask a ‘real coder’ to fix the scripts; because I really know code. And yet, I have a friend who was unable to learn coding for 20 years who can now make what he always wanted because of ai coding. I think, what sets me apart from haters of ai coding, is that I value the empowerment of people and, instead of laugh at the person who doesnt really know how to code who uses ai, I am very happy for them since they can finally do what they want.
Pretty much this. Any local use is neat. Corporate schemes can fuck a rake.
I’m hoping local video catches up before the bubble pops, because describing footage into existence is cool as shit. I want the internet where fanfiction can be as real as the movie.
“Corporate schemes” are where a lot of those local models originate. The current state of the art in local video generation, Wan2.2, was made by Alibaba, one of the world’s largest retailers and e-commerce companies and the fifth-largest AI company. The Llama series of models, which kicked off local LLMs, were made by Meta. Meta also created the PyTorch library for machine learning that vast swaths of open AI projects are built on.
I prefer to use local AI models whenever possible, for various reasons. But I don’t begrudge the existence of companies providing these services. As long as competition can be maintained it’ll likely be a net benefit to the field even if individual products are often closed.
Big companies spending money is not the part we’re talking about. The schemes people hate are where this tech gets shoved into everyone’s face, everywhere, and makes software and websites less reliable. If ChatGPT was still just a website you could go to, by choice, a lot of people would be happier.
I have yet to encounter any of these schemes myself. I’ve encountered places where AI tools were provided, but not where they get “shoved in my face”. I often have to seek them out. Closest I’ve encountered was when Google switched me over to an AI response by default instead of search results, with a popup saying “do you want this, or do you want to go back to regular search results?” I tried the AI out a bit, didn’t like it since I already have chatbots I use when I want a chatbot summary, and then easily found the option to switch back. I could have just clicked “no, back to normal please” when it first switched for the same effect.
I suspect a lot of people are just looking for things to get offended about. They see an option they don’t want to use and then instead of just not using it (like how they’ve long done for other kinds of options they don’t want to use) they get all worked up about it.
It’s getting a little shovey to be fair. The top of most Google results is an AI overview that you can’t opt out of. The top line of WhatsApp is “ask meta AI”. Meta is particularly bad for it, zuck explicitly wants to replace your real life friends with monetizable bots. Those of us working in big corporates are getting rapidly bored of the “assistants” and “copilots” that have nuked our tech budget and populate every app without assisting or copiloting in meaningful ways (and of correcting enthusiastically wrong output of colleagues blithely using LLMs for inappropriate tasks).
Some things it’s possible to just avoid but big tech is pretty pervasive. Tricky to really participate in society without at this point.
My guy - your counterexamples are the fucking examples.
Android telling me ‘hey guess what we’re gonna scan your messages and constantly offer to pretend to be you’ almost had me snap my phone in half. And I like this technology. I am a routine defender of the concept, on Lemmy. But the skeeze factor on these forced constant additions you seem to view as gentle are giving people the creeps. Justifiably so.
Right, and I’m saying my examples are extremely weaksauce when it comes to things being “shoved in someone’s face.”
I have an Android phone and I haven’t had anything like what you’re describing happen. It could be that there was some popup on update that said “hey there’s this new feature” and I said “no” and I have now forgotten about it because it was a trivial, routine sort of thing that happens whenever there’s an update - there’s usually some kind of new feature it’ll tell me about. If it didn’t tell me about them I’d never know about them, so I’m fine with that.
Being inured to the shit these companies keep pulling is not disproof that they keep pulling shit. You’re just shrugging about the awful scenario because they still let you opt out… sometimes. They didn’t stop training on your private fucking messages, just because you never click the cluster-of-stars button. There’s maybe a checkbox for that, buried deep in the settings, in a file cabinet labeled “beward the leopard.” They might even honor it! But you can’t really stop them, any more than you can revert to the versions of search engines that worked, five years ago.
What do you think people are talking about, if not the bullshit you blithely weather? Bing’s not gonna put a gun to someone’s head and tell them to render a video. But millions of people every day (okay well it’s Bing) thousands of people every day are pestered about some bullshit capability. Getting cajoled is bad, actually. It’s unpleasant. Especially when people wind up trying it, and it’s… okay, at best. And then they get the same come-ons for the same bullshit, for every goddamn website people actually use. Gmail wants to know if you’re interested in AI. Facebook wants to know if you’re interested-- Twitter wants to know-- Google Search-- your own goddamn phone starts hassling you about this, and people go from tired of it to angry at it.
Justifiably so.
comment deleted because it was too awesome
I mentioned once that i had ripped that shit out of my laptop in passing at work and my boss not only had me delouse all the work machines, the next day SIX cowokers showed up with their personal computers and hopeful looks.
I only have seven coworkers. The last one is a mac runner.
I dislike that the conversation seems to feel like an echo chamber. I’m not saying that it is, just that it has some traits of one.
Commenters who use nuance about how they see AI being used positively get highly downvoted, discouraging further engagement.
Commenters who contribute with name calling or ad hominem get wildly upvoted.
Since I follow other places outside the Fediverse, I agree that the disapproval of genAi in Lemmy is monolithic and repetitive. Mastodon also has a lot of AI-criticism, but perhaps it is more sophisticated, backed up by articles and the like. In other places, there is active research and adoption. For instance, a cybersecurity firm showed that hypnotic suggestion is a very effective jaibreaking tactic against Language Models. https://www.securityweek.com/red-teams-breach-gpt-5-with-ease-warn-its-nearly-unusable-for-enterprise/ Try explaining this to an ML user. Ai-enhanced code editors are big right now, and I have met lots of tech people that are virtually inseparable from their chatbots.
But I rarely use it, unless I have a specific type of situation where search engines are a dead end, I need to provide more context etc. This is a recent post I think provides a more informed view https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/an-ai-premortem/ . More broadly, every single time I read sth about AI on Lemmy, I feel I am witnessing the birth of anti-android rhetoric depicted in Detroit Becoming Human or even Bladerunner. It seems to me like a form of bigotry, and it was a thing that convinced me that the userbase of Lemmy is not exactly healthy. Especially ML. There must be a few of them with multiple socket puppet accounts, or they are all just parroting the same points. Ironic how they are the biggest fans of a (poorly understood) stochastic parrot theory, when they are the same people who have been persuaded that Signal is not a “really private” messenger. There is a couple topics where you see how brain dead these people are, AI is one.
You can’t be bigoted against technology. AI is not human, or alive.
You can for sure be prejudiced against technology. You can engage in bad-faith condemnation of any subject, from a dogmatic belief set, in ways that are not meaningfully distinguished from the practice of bigotry.
Starting from a conclusion and working backwards might be every human vice, at its core. A lot of people are working backwards from the idea that ‘AI bad.’ This is hard to miss in grand philosophical declarations about art, as if there’s only one definition or only one motivation. It’s more subtle, and therefore more dangerous, when people start shuffling cards after the word ‘because.’
I think you might be describing your own bigotry of people who as reasonable questions about new tools and technology like:
What is this tool useful for? Why is it free? What is the end goal? What does it cost? Can it cause harm or death?
The majority of people in the states do not find it useful, are aware they are beta testing/training an unfinished product, have not been given an end goal, have noticed electricity and water bills rising, and have experienced or read about cases of AI assisting humans to cause harm or to commit suicide.
So no, I dont think people are bigoted against AI. The majority of people on here defending AI do so because they personally find it useful and dont care about the other stuff. You are free to be selfish if you want to, but the rest of society is also free to shun you and your opinions.
‘People have legitimate criticism’ won’t change when they also have illegitimate criticism.
Compare GMO foods. Monsanto was a hideous corporation. The loudest condemnation of the underlying technology was still factually and morally wrong. People sneering ‘is this ham processed?!’ are not engaged in results-oriented consideration of complex and ambiguous research. They learned some no-no words and they’re gonna posture about how smart they are.
Some people are overtly prejudiced against AI. Any pushback on the scope or relevance of their absolute condemnation sees them pivot to some unrelated thing they half-remember, that barely stands up to consideration.
It’s a Gish gallop. It’s the same tired pattern of behavior used to demonize anything mundane. It read the library and it doesn’t magically say only good things and it buys electricity, so if you don’t perform the two minutes hate with us, you’re a big meanie who must be cast out from society.
Fuck’s sake.
You are the only one pivoting to another subject, Monsanto.
You haven’t responded to a single point I made, so I have literally nothing to respond to.
Your reading comprehension is terrible.
It seems to me like a form of bigotry
Are you serious right now? What?
I know how it sounds. I am half serious though. If androids are to be in the future, people denying them rights will use this exact set of arguments. The stubbornness over a small set of ill-understood premises also resembles transphobia quite a lot. So yes, under a certain perspective, the belief structure of Lemmy’s anti-ai sentiment does resemble some form of bigotries.
The difference here that makes this comparison tenuous and potentially hurtful is that victims of bigotry are victims of structurally enforced power imbalances, AI itself IS a structurally enforced power imbalance.
Theoretically you are right in your point, but in practice you sound like asshole.
AI itself IS a structurally enforced power imbalance
I don’t disagree. But since you decide to cut short the discussion by calling me:
you sound like asshole
I don’t feel particularly obliged to word how this also stands true. I never said sth to the effect you seem to be projecting here. In fact, I enjoy the notion that “AI is fascism”. But at the same time, I think that those parroting the statistical more likely response for an ML user have the exact brain structure I see daily in bigots.
Congratulations on curtailing a possibly interesting discussion because my idea was shocking for your synapse.
Then don’t make casual comparisons to extremely serious topics like bigotry without thinking it through first.
Wow, you keep acting like you have the high ground in this pitiful position you are. Are you chastising me for allegedly making light of bigotry? This is ridiculous. I know bigotry first hand, and I wouldn’t think the same of you based on your attitude on this topic. Should I have you in front of me right now I would kick you all the way down a cliff, because you are a sad little bastard. Now, if you want me to clarify things, for anyone following this that is not at your level of bad faith and self-righteousness:
The pattern of thinking resembles that of bigots. Specifically transphobic bigots.
Did I call anti-ai sentiment a bigotry? No. I said in a HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE where artificial sentient being are around, these arguments would be the exact belief set that transphobes have now.
Does this make light of here-and-now bigotry? No.
Does the rest of my rhetoric amount to anything less than subverting oppression be it class, race, or gender? Also no.
So I don’t know what the fuck you are trying to accomplish here you little troll, but if you know all the ways I could doxx you and fuck you up in real life you just wouldn’t, so shut the fuck up right now asshole. Is that clear to you mf?
The echo chamber part is what gets me. I’ve gotten downvoted and had people argue that I must be pro-ai because I disagreed on details of how AI works, the difference between AI and LLMs, or exactly how we address the issues it’s causing.
I think most of our current generative AI isn’t fit for purpose for most of what people are saying it can do.
I think it’s unfortunate that generative AI has entirely coopeted the term AI, which is a much broader field.
I think labeling LLMs as plagiarism machines and trying to stop them under current copyright law is destined to failure because there isn’t enough difference between what’s clearly acceptable and what people are unhappy about. We need a new, deliberately thought out way of addressing “you can download my stuff and mush it about with a computer if that’s what you need to perceive it as a human. If you’re mushing it about to analyze and make a copy cat, then you can’t have it”. The function of copyright is to promote innovation, and while generative AI isn’t violating our rules for copyright, it’s clearly working contrary to the intent of our current system.
Related:
The majority user base in the comments are anti-ai. But every other week or so I find myself having to block some “ai_porn” this or that community. I dont think I’ve seen a lot of engagement with those communities (like, I think its just the creator trying to make it happen).
Are they just unaffiliated gooners? Is it techbros trying to normalize it by porn exposure? I dont know, I just know I’ve had to block several communities for being AI and it’s weird.
You’re actively blocking exposure to communities that are using AI, and then noticing “the majority userbase seems to be anti-AI.”
Do you think perhaps there’s a lot of people out there who are not anti-AI, but that you’re not seeing them because you’ve found an anti-AI bubble you’re more comfortable in?
Instead of pretending to teach someone about social media bubbles, go and find your counter point yourself. There should be plenty of references you can find on the fediverse to refute their point.
He literally said he was filtering out AI-positive communities.
You took one piece of information and made assumptions off of it. Instead of doing that, you could just prove that there are ai positive communities. I would argue that AI porn communities aren’t an example of AI positivity. The point of those communities is to create pornography that was unable to be created before. I dont think they much care about the tools.
Go ahead and prove us wrong smart guy. You took the trouble to argue this point multiple times in this thread but have no proof of your own position.
There’s programs that generate porn just by describing it, and y’all are wondering if the interest in that is made-up?
Everyone pretty much hates it
Time step off your local instance, and smell the pro-side.
I am anarchist, copyright shouldn’t exist. But harassment via “nude generation” shouldn’t. I feel those generators should keep it to themselves, and not harass people or sue generators. Defamation needs nuance.
What we have now is fascists generating propaganda, which I am 100% against.
My co worker loves it and it’s driving me crazy.
I’ve had three different co-workers hounding me about how great it is. One guy showed me how he had it write an email for him. It took him longer to enter the prompt than it would’ve taken to just write the email himself.
more of an ask than a thought, really
While in the shower, one might think of a question. Is that not a shower thought?
It is more of a rhetorical question to me, an observation rather than a direct question but yeah I can see that.
Well there’s no “showerasks” community
There are techbros on the fediverse?
A techbro is “someone who likes a technology that I, personally, dislike.” Since everyone has different likes and dislikes, yeah, there’ll be techbros around. Who exactly those techbros are will vary from person to person.
So, I’m a techbro because I’m on the fediverse? Wat?
