I’m tired of talking to AI. I want to talk to real people. But even when I talk to people, they forward my questions to AI and send me AI’s answer.

I’m tired of talking to AI. I want to talk to real people. But even when I talk to people, they forward my questions to AI and send me the AI’s answer.

  • Victor@lemmy.world
    30·
    22 days ago

    Yeah that pisses me off, too. I don’t want to have to append to my questions that I don’t want AI answers. If I ask a human, it’s because I want a human response. I know how to search the internet. But having a human interaction and discussion and thought process is sometimes more fun.

    We could be in the break room and I’ll ask people, “do you remember if X or Y” or some shit, I dunno.

    Immediately with the phones, and they just turn it around for me to read, they won’t even read it to me.

    What’s the goddamn point of being human anymore.

      • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        212·
        22 days ago

        Well if you think AI should be banned (for example) then you are a Luddite? I mean without any insulting, they were anti new tech and the name has basically become just that.

        I went luddite on music a while ago, going back to pre making playlists on usb keys instead of spotify and such crap, I wouldn’t get offended by the term.

        • Triumph@fedia.io
          121·
          22 days ago

          They were anti-loom tech, because it was going to take jobs from people.

        • Victor@lemmy.world
          22·
          22 days ago

          I don’t understand the reason or need to be calling anyone anything, even if it’s accurate. Names for groups of people who think a certain thing only serve to polarize the discourse, at best, or worse, target them with propaganda (aimed at the “other” group).

          Creating a “them” is just counterproductive to the conversation and the facts.

          • Senal@programming.devEnglish
            4·
            22 days ago

            Categorisation and labeling are incredibly helpful in some contexts.

            It conveys a contextual set of parameters without having to explain each one in detail every time it comes up.

            Using categories and labels to be an arsehole is the fault of the arsehole not the tool.

            I understand there is nuance here, categories can be detrimental to certain kind of thinking because they make it easy to stay inside the box.

            But no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

            • Victor@lemmy.world
              4·
              22 days ago

              What I’m saying is that you can talk about a problem without introducing a term to describe the people participating in the discussion. That’s a different thing to what you’re describing.

              But either way, if you really need labels in your discourse, you want to put the labels and categories on (a group of) ideas, not the people having them. Can we agree on that part?

              • Senal@programming.devEnglish
                21·
                22 days ago

                What I’m saying is that you can talk about a problem without introducing a term to describe the people participating in the discussion. That’s a different thing to what you’re describing.

                And as I said. using a group term as a slur (or using one that is known to usually be a slur) is arsehole behaviour.

                Using group terms in general is not.

                But either way, if you really need labels in your discourse, you want to put the labels and categories on (a group of) ideas, not the people having them. Can we agree on that part?

                I don’t think so.

                Using a term for a person as a way to easily attribute a set of parameters from a grouping is basic communication.

                Not all of those attributes/parameters are ideas.

                Using it to be hateful is a problem of usage not of categorisation in general.

                I’m not arguing that there aren’t truly shitty usages out there, im saying it’s not the tool its the usage.

                Categorisation is almost a core part of language, nations, clubs teams, ethnicities, ideologies, age ranges, genders, sexualities.

                • Victor@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  21 days ago

                  I would say that just because it comes naturally to us doesn’t mean it’s what’s best for us. Just like sugar tastes good doesn’t mean it’s good for you.

                  What I said in the beginning was this:

                  Names for groups of people who think a certain thing

                  So I’m going to only stick to that, even though I generally believe we should try to refer to people as “we” as much as possible unless absolutely necessary. We are one people on this earth, even if we have small differences in our needs and circumstances. And we have very common, global problems right now.

                  In this particular case, is was not necessary to introduce the fact that a person could be referred to as a “Luddite”. It made no difference and only served to polarize and segregate.

                  • Senal@programming.devEnglish
                    1·
                    21 days ago

                    I would say that just because it comes naturally to us doesn’t mean it’s what’s best for us. Just like sugar tastes good doesn’t mean it’s good for you.

                    Thats not a great example because sugar is a necessary part of nutrition.

                    It is, however a great example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater because if you hear “sugar bad” and then stop all sugar it’s going to cause problems.

                    Excess sugar is bad, sure, sugar in general, not so much.

                    Names for groups of people who think a certain thing

                    You mean like, vegans? Animal rights activists? Conscientious objectors?

                    Even your example “people who think a certain thing” is a grouping.

                    We are one people on this earth, even if we have small differences in our needs and circumstances. And we have very common, global problems right now.

                    Thats still a grouping, it’s just a large one. That can also be a dangerously naive way to go about problem solving.

                    “They are all the same so the solution for all the people in that group must be the same” gets people killed.

                    In this particular case, is was not necessary to introduce the fact that a person could be referred to as a “Luddite”. It made no difference and only served to polarize and segregate

                    Necessary, probably not? , useful, possibly.

                    That you hear Luddite and think of it as automatically bad might say more about you than the person using the term.

                    Also segregation is literally the point of grouping and categorisation, again if you think segregation = automatically bad, that might say more about you than you think.

                    I’d go as far as to say if you see groupings as only a way to be hateful, you might want to consider if your way of thinking is the problem.