Like was it a meaningful debate or a flat out flame war? And what was the main theme you were arguing over?
The treatment of those with disabilities or who are just down on their luck, by the mostly apethic “I’m alright jack” public. I’ve had many arguments with those who thought that just because somebody needed benefits that they were milking the system.
The most disgusting and revolting thing I can read on the subject from somebody is “if I’ve managed to get by fine without state help and support, so can/should they”… And yes many do actually think this way, sometimes even to those who need wheelchairs or other aids.
Sometimes I’ve managed to convince them to care about somebody other than themleves for a change, sometimes I’ve caused them to go away thinking about it, and other times I’ve caused them to double down on their stance.
Either way, the engagements were meaningful and eye opening and I’ll defend this position until the day I die because nobody has any business being that disgusting towards other human beings.
I agree. Sometimes people who value equality forget about equity. That is helping others to achieve their own level of equality. A person in a wheelchair needs a ramp, a person with an invisible illness needs accommodations, too. Equity is almost always overlooked but it is necessary for true equality to occur. I wrote a whole paper about this in college.
That women should have the ability to give informed consent at a doctor’s office.
I’ve had to argue for decades that birth control shouldn’t be held hostage until women submit to a pap smear.
It’s flat out unethical to hold a prescription until a patient does an unrelated screening, no matter how good your intentions are. It’d be like doctors withholding Viagra until a guy got his prostate checked annually. Yes, it’s a good idea to do cancer screening but no one should be coerced into any medical procedure against their will, especially such an intimate and invasive one. This only happens to women.
And yet you’d think I told them they should skin their new puppy alive. The amount of vitriol and even sexual harassment I got for maintaining this was mind blowing. And it was always from other women. I was told I’m a little girl, or not a “real” woman like it’s some sort of twisted right of passage.
I wasn’t debating that the exam doesn’t save lives or that people should stop having it done, just that women should have a choice and not be coerced - that it should be treated just like colonoscopies in that it’s entirely voluntary.
It hasn’t been that big of an issue in recent years. But early 2010s holyshit you’d think women didn’t think that they should have bodily autonomy (and a lot of this was coming from fellow pro-choicers!).
This was a thing in the southern US. I know the North half of the country wasn’t as insane.
that voting blue no matter who is bullshit.
and before anyone comes to argue otherwise, that you MUST vote blue on the election or else you vote for the other side, i bid you a ‘jog on’. ESPECIALLY since you have to answer for the continuing campaign of the democratic party against their progressive candidates.
vote blue no matter who my ass. you either have a person i would eagerly vote for or i will find someone else. it is your fault we have these republicans painted blue arguing for policies slightly left of hitler.
don’t let perfect be the enemy of good, is horse shit when good is enriching and empowering corporations, and genocide.
I would say it’s mostly topics I’m not actually arguing about.
I tend to point out false statements or false assumptions. I do it regardless of the topic or my position on an issue, but usually it’s taken as general opposition to whatever the person was saying. So they call me a shill or demand that I prove a ridiculous point of view they imagine I must hold. It’s like only The Enemy is expected to care about the accuracy of what The Right Side says.
I always hate when someone I agree with makes a stupid argument. Then if I point out their bad argument, I look like I’m arguing the other side
Way too many people think trans people’s right to exist is a debate.
The reading comprehension and overall common sense on this website is piss poor.
I struggle to recall any “meaningful” debates.
how dare you say we piss on the poor
local AI has none of the ethical issues of big corporate AI
From people who self-identify as Leftist too
I stated that in a democracy fascist, racist, neo-nazi political parties should not have the right to form, campaign or run for government because - other than the obvious reasons - they are inherently undemocratic. I also added that this is not a paradox of democracy and that claiming otherwise is apologist bullcrap trying to justify fascism, racism or other institutional, totalitarian forms of oppression.
I got death threats.
Edit: maybe this doesn’t apply here since there was no arguing really? 🤔
Yeah, Lemmy is a bit more sophisticated and civil compared to other social media. That is why I always come back.
I don’t remember exactly what it was that I said that I got absolutely dog piled on and told I was wrong repeatedly but it had something to do with fire hydrants. 30+ replies telling me I was wrong and stupid and didn’t know what I was talking about.
For the record, I work in water and fire hydrants are very much part of my work. But, a bunch of random people on reddit definitely know better than me. 🤷♀️
Charitably, could there be some kind of regional difference where people living in certain places truly have something different? Over the winter, I came across a thread asking for radiator repair advice, and people from parts of the world with water radiators were very casual “open it up for investigation” while people from parts of the world with steam radiators were like “do not open anything you will die”. Lots of confused comments, too, until someone figured out the disconnect.
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.
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.
Probably 15 years since I had more than a 5 or so back and forths about anything. I lose interest and just stop replying.
Idiots who don’t understand that vi is better then Emacs
:q!