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.
Or maybe I was talking about how the material fed into the AI was largely pirated content that they did not pay for. Content, that if you are a human, you’d legally have to pay to read. And they got away with pirating jusssst fine for commerical use.
I don’t need to get into flimsy but still correct shit about how there’s a substantial difference between only extracting from other’s content compared to writing with your own experiences combined, because they committed crimes to obtain the data that they used to create AI.
More however, you pretend that personal hardware somehow doesn’t have an environmental impact? That’s also laughable.
My call of bullshit was correct, so I’m going to laugh at you complaining about it
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.
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.
You can’t think of an actual argument with substance, so you’re just going to try and paint me as someone hateful. How embarrassing for you.
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.
Or maybe I was talking about how the material fed into the AI was largely pirated content that they did not pay for. Content, that if you are a human, you’d legally have to pay to read. And they got away with pirating jusssst fine for commerical use.
I don’t need to get into flimsy but still correct shit about how there’s a substantial difference between only extracting from other’s content compared to writing with your own experiences combined, because they committed crimes to obtain the data that they used to create AI.
More however, you pretend that personal hardware somehow doesn’t have an environmental impact? That’s also laughable.
My call of bullshit was correct, so I’m going to laugh at you complaining about it
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.