AI usage. People who blindly hate it fail to realize you can use AI locally without empowering the shitty corporations that are buying up all the RAM/storage and being irresponsible with their water usage for cooling. Data centers suck, but AI is awesome.
It’s fine to personally hate AI, but a lot of people dog pile others for using it for themselves. I despise corporate AI, but if someone is locally hosting their own, not using it comercially, and not stuffing it down other people’s throats through their “artwork” they “made” or other nonsense I don’t see the problem of making the best out of a bad situation.
Care to enumerate them? I’ve yet to read a valid reason to hate my using an open weights model, powered by solar energy, on my personal hardware. Doesn’t stop the hate, but I’m always open to hearing why it exists.
“My GPU runs on solar” is a great answer… to a question nobody asked. Hosting locally cuts server energy use. It doesn’t magically erase the training data issues, copyright, scams, misinformation, hallucinations, or the broader social impacts. You’re arguing against one criticism while pretending you’ve answered them all.
It was a response to “AI ruins the environment.” Humans have the same training data issues as AI, so therefore there are none. Copyright can be addressed in the same way as humans. Scams? What does that even mean? What scams do AI do that humans don’t? Misinformation? Because humans are infallible and always give correct info? Hallucinations? Right, I forgot humans are perfect and always give the right info.
Broader social impacts is a new one. You hate AI because of broader social impacts? You got me then. There’s no answer for that. Alright, everyone, pack Pandora’s Box back up, Tenniswaffles hates AI because of the broader social impacts so we have to abandon the technology.
Every one of your rebuttals boils down to “humans do it too,” as if that settles anything. It doesn’t. Humans can lie, plagiarize, scam, and spread misinformation. AI makes all of those faster, cheaper, and infinitely more scalable. That’s the entire point, and you keep pretending scale is irrelevant because acknowledging it wrecks your argument.
Your “Pandora’s Box” rant is just a straw man. Nobody said AI should be abandoned because of its social impacts. You asked why people dislike AI beyond data centers. You were given several reasons. Instead of addressing them, you built a ridiculous caricature so you could dunk on an argument nobody made.
At this point, you’re not refuting the criticisms, you’ve just downgraded every objection to “humans do it too.” By that logic, we’d never regulate anything. Humans steal, so why have laws? Individual humans pollute, so why regulate industrial pollution? Humans commit fraud, so why care when AI lets fraud happen at industrial scale?
At this point, you’re not rebutting the criticisms, you’ve replaced them with a lazy thought-terminating cliché. “Humans do it too” is what people say when they don’t have an answer but still want to sound like they won.
No, you’re missing the point entirely. AI is a tool, and with any tool the person responsible is the user. There are already laws in place for people who produce forgeries, plagiarism, scams, etc. If someone uses AI to accomplish something dishonest there is already a process in place for addressing that. We don’t need special considerations for AI any more than we need to to determine what to do when someone burns a building to the ground with gasoline versus just matches. The crime is still arson, so hating on gasoline because it made the fire burn faster is just stupid.
There are plenty of people on here saying AI should go away. There’s an entire community on Lemmy called fuck_ai who would disagree with you. Pretending they don’t exist doesn’t make the analogy a straw man.
The only criticism I’ve seen is regarding data centers, because haters are too moronic to separate the two. It sounds as though you fit into that category, as well.
But no, I’ve realized I can’t change anyone’s mind so I don’t care anymore. Enjoy your hate parade. There’s your thought-terminating cliche. I don’t care anymore.
In the future I’m just going to decline to self-report as someone who uses AI. People can’t tell anyways, which is why self reporting is necessary. Admitting it is just volunteering for punishment. So no, I don’t use AI, never have and never will. Go argue with someone who uses AI, because that’s not me and never has been.
You asked why people dislike AI. I gave you reasons. Now you’re arguing whether AI users should be legally responsible for misuse. That’s a completely different conversation.
And your gasoline analogy falls apart because gasoline isn’t designed to generate persuasive text, images, voices, or code at scale. AI is. The concern isn’t that it’s “a tool” it’s that it’s a tool that dramatically lowers the cost and effort required to produce plagiarism, scams, misinformation, and deepfakes. Society has always treated technologies differently when they massively change capability and scale. That’s why we have regulations for cars that don’t apply to horses, and aviation laws that don’t apply to bicycles.
As for the “fuck_ai” crowd: congratulations, you’ve found some extremists on the internet. They aren’t representative of everyone who criticizes AI. You asked why people dislike it, not whether literally every critic wants it banned.
The irony is that you’ve spent this entire discussion asking for reasons people hate AI, then dismissed every reason as either “humans do it too,” “it’s already illegal,” or “those people are morons.” You didn’t come looking for reasons you came looking for excuses to ignore them.
Yep, you were right all along. I’m right there with you one hundred percent, my brother in hate. AI has no redeeming value, it’s evil. Let’s go find people that disagree with us and torment them together! We’ll show them what it means to disagree with the mob.
Bravo. You’re great at knowing your bullshit argument will win any debate.
Out of curiosity, if someone wants to become an artist and trains by watching Disney films, how much do they owe Disney before they’re allowed to make anything?
Oh, wait, let me guess: the rules you’ve made up don’t apply to biological neutral networks, only digital ones, right? Brilliant. I can see why you win debates by calling bullshit right at the onset.
I hope the boy you’re ho’ing is blind and deaf. Otherwise anything they say or create can be attributed to the data they’ve been exposed to in the past and they’ll be guilty of copyright infringement just through the act of thinking! Poor boy.
Yeah, probably. That’s on the shitty fascist governments, though, that should implement Universal Basic Income and tax the companies profiting from AI to fund it. Their anger is severely misplaced and it’s incredibly frustrating as someone who went to university for years to study AI.
I’m attempting to educate. There are literally people on here that believe that AI is “a database with auto-complete.”. It’s so ignorant that it would be funny, if they hadn’t organized into an angry mob out to slander anyone who dares use neural networks to boost their productivity.
It’s a classic case of ignorance breeding hatred, and the only way to resolve it is for them to understand the technology. Unfortunately most seem unwilling to incorporate understanding into their worldview and cling to misconceptions.
I don’t enjoy arguing, I just can’t abide misinformation causing derision.
I mean I am not against AI. I pay for ChatGPT plus. My brother and I have gotten rogue type AIs off the dark web and mess around with them locally. I use Gen AI for reference images to look at when I draw. They are also for inspiration. I just feel it is an injustice to artists. If it were somehow possible for Gen AI to credit the sources of its generations, which I don’t believe is possible since the training is baked into the AI. That would be advantageous. Regardless, I don’t have any real strong opinions for or against it.
Wow it must feel so good to “win” every discussion, huh? Who knew that the secret was to just never ever thoughtfully consider what anyone else says and to cling to your argument no matter what.
Because who cares about being right when you can make yourself feel good about the thing you believe, right or wrong? Genius!
An artist stealing in the way Pablo Picasso argued is not the same as a company using copyrighted material to train its AI. Companies are held to a much higher standard than an individual artist who steals a few elements from other artists to create their own style. Machine’s don’t have these rights. They must comply with what companies have to comply with. There is no debate.
AI usage. People who blindly hate it fail to realize you can use AI locally without empowering the shitty corporations that are buying up all the RAM/storage and being irresponsible with their water usage for cooling. Data centers suck, but AI is awesome.
That’s a pretty blind take that ignores the other reasons people hate AI. Also, good lord tech bro logic.
It’s fine to personally hate AI, but a lot of people dog pile others for using it for themselves. I despise corporate AI, but if someone is locally hosting their own, not using it comercially, and not stuffing it down other people’s throats through their “artwork” they “made” or other nonsense I don’t see the problem of making the best out of a bad situation.
Care to enumerate them? I’ve yet to read a valid reason to hate my using an open weights model, powered by solar energy, on my personal hardware. Doesn’t stop the hate, but I’m always open to hearing why it exists.
“My GPU runs on solar” is a great answer… to a question nobody asked. Hosting locally cuts server energy use. It doesn’t magically erase the training data issues, copyright, scams, misinformation, hallucinations, or the broader social impacts. You’re arguing against one criticism while pretending you’ve answered them all.
It was a response to “AI ruins the environment.” Humans have the same training data issues as AI, so therefore there are none. Copyright can be addressed in the same way as humans. Scams? What does that even mean? What scams do AI do that humans don’t? Misinformation? Because humans are infallible and always give correct info? Hallucinations? Right, I forgot humans are perfect and always give the right info.
Broader social impacts is a new one. You hate AI because of broader social impacts? You got me then. There’s no answer for that. Alright, everyone, pack Pandora’s Box back up, Tenniswaffles hates AI because of the broader social impacts so we have to abandon the technology.
Every one of your rebuttals boils down to “humans do it too,” as if that settles anything. It doesn’t. Humans can lie, plagiarize, scam, and spread misinformation. AI makes all of those faster, cheaper, and infinitely more scalable. That’s the entire point, and you keep pretending scale is irrelevant because acknowledging it wrecks your argument.
Your “Pandora’s Box” rant is just a straw man. Nobody said AI should be abandoned because of its social impacts. You asked why people dislike AI beyond data centers. You were given several reasons. Instead of addressing them, you built a ridiculous caricature so you could dunk on an argument nobody made.
At this point, you’re not refuting the criticisms, you’ve just downgraded every objection to “humans do it too.” By that logic, we’d never regulate anything. Humans steal, so why have laws? Individual humans pollute, so why regulate industrial pollution? Humans commit fraud, so why care when AI lets fraud happen at industrial scale?
At this point, you’re not rebutting the criticisms, you’ve replaced them with a lazy thought-terminating cliché. “Humans do it too” is what people say when they don’t have an answer but still want to sound like they won.
No, you’re missing the point entirely. AI is a tool, and with any tool the person responsible is the user. There are already laws in place for people who produce forgeries, plagiarism, scams, etc. If someone uses AI to accomplish something dishonest there is already a process in place for addressing that. We don’t need special considerations for AI any more than we need to to determine what to do when someone burns a building to the ground with gasoline versus just matches. The crime is still arson, so hating on gasoline because it made the fire burn faster is just stupid.
There are plenty of people on here saying AI should go away. There’s an entire community on Lemmy called fuck_ai who would disagree with you. Pretending they don’t exist doesn’t make the analogy a straw man.
The only criticism I’ve seen is regarding data centers, because haters are too moronic to separate the two. It sounds as though you fit into that category, as well.
But no, I’ve realized I can’t change anyone’s mind so I don’t care anymore. Enjoy your hate parade. There’s your thought-terminating cliche. I don’t care anymore.
In the future I’m just going to decline to self-report as someone who uses AI. People can’t tell anyways, which is why self reporting is necessary. Admitting it is just volunteering for punishment. So no, I don’t use AI, never have and never will. Go argue with someone who uses AI, because that’s not me and never has been.
You keep changing the question.
You asked why people dislike AI. I gave you reasons. Now you’re arguing whether AI users should be legally responsible for misuse. That’s a completely different conversation.
And your gasoline analogy falls apart because gasoline isn’t designed to generate persuasive text, images, voices, or code at scale. AI is. The concern isn’t that it’s “a tool” it’s that it’s a tool that dramatically lowers the cost and effort required to produce plagiarism, scams, misinformation, and deepfakes. Society has always treated technologies differently when they massively change capability and scale. That’s why we have regulations for cars that don’t apply to horses, and aviation laws that don’t apply to bicycles.
As for the “fuck_ai” crowd: congratulations, you’ve found some extremists on the internet. They aren’t representative of everyone who criticizes AI. You asked why people dislike it, not whether literally every critic wants it banned.
The irony is that you’ve spent this entire discussion asking for reasons people hate AI, then dismissed every reason as either “humans do it too,” “it’s already illegal,” or “those people are morons.” You didn’t come looking for reasons you came looking for excuses to ignore them.
Yep, you were right all along. I’m right there with you one hundred percent, my brother in hate. AI has no redeeming value, it’s evil. Let’s go find people that disagree with us and torment them together! We’ll show them what it means to disagree with the mob.
I’ve never used AI and never will.
If you ascribe non validity to every argument you dislike, it’s a matter of course that you’ll only find your viewpoint the only valid one.
So: no. You’ve got nothing, just blind hatred.
No. I’m calling you out because you already know the theft arguments, and are intentionally calling them bullshit.
Yeah, we’re all thieves. Only the blind and deaf are not. Great argument. You win.
This is precisely why I called your bullshit from the first comment.
Bravo. You’re great at knowing your bullshit argument will win any debate.
Out of curiosity, if someone wants to become an artist and trains by watching Disney films, how much do they owe Disney before they’re allowed to make anything?
Oh, wait, let me guess: the rules you’ve made up don’t apply to biological neutral networks, only digital ones, right? Brilliant. I can see why you win debates by calling bullshit right at the onset.
Ho boy
I hope the boy you’re ho’ing is blind and deaf. Otherwise anything they say or create can be attributed to the data they’ve been exposed to in the past and they’ll be guilty of copyright infringement just through the act of thinking! Poor boy.
My guess is that the great bulk of the anti-AI stuff originates with people who are scared of losing their jobs in some way.
Yeah, probably. That’s on the shitty fascist governments, though, that should implement Universal Basic Income and tax the companies profiting from AI to fund it. Their anger is severely misplaced and it’s incredibly frustrating as someone who went to university for years to study AI.
Where did the training data come from?
Oh yeah, shitty corporations that scraped the web.
Where do artists inspiration come from? Oh yeah, shitty people scraped all the other art.
As we know, this destroys the original art and is stealing to boot. Only the blind and deaf are truly creative.
You know that’s not even slightly similar, don’t be trying to do “Behold! A man!” this isn’t fucking Ancient Greece
Thanks for your opinion, even if it is incorrect.
You are obviously “good” at arguing. You have made a clear point. I didn’t mean for this post to generate arguments .
I’m attempting to educate. There are literally people on here that believe that AI is “a database with auto-complete.”. It’s so ignorant that it would be funny, if they hadn’t organized into an angry mob out to slander anyone who dares use neural networks to boost their productivity.
It’s a classic case of ignorance breeding hatred, and the only way to resolve it is for them to understand the technology. Unfortunately most seem unwilling to incorporate understanding into their worldview and cling to misconceptions.
I don’t enjoy arguing, I just can’t abide misinformation causing derision.
I mean I am not against AI. I pay for ChatGPT plus. My brother and I have gotten rogue type AIs off the dark web and mess around with them locally. I use Gen AI for reference images to look at when I draw. They are also for inspiration. I just feel it is an injustice to artists. If it were somehow possible for Gen AI to credit the sources of its generations, which I don’t believe is possible since the training is baked into the AI. That would be advantageous. Regardless, I don’t have any real strong opinions for or against it.
I respect you and your opinion, Orc, and I appreciate your presence on Lemmy. You’re polite and pragmatic, a very charming combination.
Wow it must feel so good to “win” every discussion, huh? Who knew that the secret was to just never ever thoughtfully consider what anyone else says and to cling to your argument no matter what.
Because who cares about being right when you can make yourself feel good about the thing you believe, right or wrong? Genius!
What argument? They didn’t argue anything. They just said I was wrong. You’re a hoot.
An artist stealing in the way Pablo Picasso argued is not the same as a company using copyrighted material to train its AI. Companies are held to a much higher standard than an individual artist who steals a few elements from other artists to create their own style. Machine’s don’t have these rights. They must comply with what companies have to comply with. There is no debate.
That’s your opinion, Orc. Your opinion does not settle debates.
We can agree to disagree.
Agreed.