This is not a SFW instance. NSFW communities will be tagged, and efforts will be made to keep SFW communities clean, but proceed at your own comfort level.
You are so desperate to side-step the entire fact that Ai, as it stands, is being implemented irresponsibly and its use and support is directly tied to the further degradation of our freedoms. I don’t give a shit if it’s good or bad when used with pure intentions, I care that its very existence right now is unnecssary, inefficient, and a direct attack on the working class. I care that for all the productivity claims, no one is getting a shorter work week except the people who are being fired and going down to 0 hours. I care that data centres are a disaster wherever they’re built, be it to the environment or the quality of life of those who live nearby.
You cannot support the working class and use Ai. It is the same as how you cannot support trans people and still get down with Harry Potter. Companies like OpenAi LOVE when you say “I don’t support ____ but when I use it, it’s different” because they know that at that point they still have your money and that you’ll let them do whatever they want as long as you can still pretend that you’re better.
People want to rip off artists and treat them like shit. AI tools are just a current tool for doing so.
models were trained without consultation by the people involved, and how it’s now being used to threaten the livelihoods of the same people.
That’s totally correct in my book. Openai, anthropic and the whole lot of them can burn as far as I’m concerned.
A tool that’s doing harm can and should be regulated, and the harm and potential for harm mitigated
Totally sidestepping things.
Remember when I wrote that giving them money was wrong, that all those companies were bad, that we need regulation on it?
You’re still not getting that AI isn’t openai or anthropic or any of that.
If you buy harry Potter, you’re giving money to the baddies.
What I said would be more akin to “you can care about trans people and enjoy wizards”. Do you see the difference?
Do you think that I’m particularly in favor of the massive AI push going on now? What have I said to make you think that?
I think I’ve been pretty clear that my position is “tools don’t define art”.
You’ve been saying “something can’t be art if it involves something I don’t like” and arguing in defense of video gamesartists the working class.
I think you dislike a tool because someone told you it’s bad, and you don’t know how to distinguish between a product, a company, and a category of tool. I think you’re now invested in the position so you can’t pivot and say you might not understand things as much as you thought. I think that’s why you’re arguing against what you think someone who disagrees with you would say instead of actually understanding.
I understood what you wrote. It was “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” as an argument for keeping Ai around. Stop fighting so hard for something that is completely unregulated and huge net-negative for the world.
Also no, “wizards” is not what I meant. Do you even understand what you wrote? Do you understand anything? God, you’re a mess.
I’m well aware of my thoughts on the matter, and where they came from, and what I choose to do with them. I have explained them, but you don’t like what I’m saying so you’re deliberately misinterpreting my replies and then complaining about me not making sense. Don’t deflect, coward.
Oh damn, that’s some high quality irony right there.
I didn’t say you meant wizard.
What I said would be more akin to “you can care about trans people and enjoy wizards”. Do you see the difference?
Notice how I’m saying “your analogy is wrong”, not “this is what you said”.
It’s really difficult to believe you when you say you understood what I was saying when your takeaway was more about AI than about art. Or when you liken my point to a common anti-gun regulation slogan when I’ve been specifically saying we should regulate them?
You know what? Let’s use guns as a direct swap. You’re arguing that guns are antithetical to art, and that no self respecting artist would use a gun in their artwork. I’m saying that guns should obviously be regulated and people shouldn’t do bad things with them, but that saying they make something not art is foolish.
You actually really haven’t explained your thoughts on the matter. You’ve several times said that you won’t but adamantly insisted you were right. You also seem to ignore anything that’s contrary to the argument you want me to be making, which is another little glob of fun in the “deliberate misunderstanding” irony train.
You haven’t convinced me you understand your thoughts or where they came from. I’m more convinced than ever that you’re just upset to be disagreed with and can’t handle not getting someone else’s argument. You’ve been railing either against something I don’t think, or against actual technical details of how something works.
You are so desperate to side-step the entire fact that Ai, as it stands, is being implemented irresponsibly and its use and support is directly tied to the further degradation of our freedoms. I don’t give a shit if it’s good or bad when used with pure intentions, I care that its very existence right now is unnecssary, inefficient, and a direct attack on the working class. I care that for all the productivity claims, no one is getting a shorter work week except the people who are being fired and going down to 0 hours. I care that data centres are a disaster wherever they’re built, be it to the environment or the quality of life of those who live nearby.
You cannot support the working class and use Ai. It is the same as how you cannot support trans people and still get down with Harry Potter. Companies like OpenAi LOVE when you say “I don’t support ____ but when I use it, it’s different” because they know that at that point they still have your money and that you’ll let them do whatever they want as long as you can still pretend that you’re better.
Fuck Ai.
Ah, lovely of you not to read what I wrote.
Totally sidestepping things.
Remember when I wrote that giving them money was wrong, that all those companies were bad, that we need regulation on it?
You’re still not getting that AI isn’t openai or anthropic or any of that.
If you buy harry Potter, you’re giving money to the baddies.
What I said would be more akin to “you can care about trans people and enjoy wizards”. Do you see the difference?
Do you think that I’m particularly in favor of the massive AI push going on now? What have I said to make you think that?
I think I’ve been pretty clear that my position is “tools don’t define art”.
You’ve been saying “something can’t be art if it involves something I don’t like” and arguing in defense of
video gamesartiststhe working class.I think you dislike a tool because someone told you it’s bad, and you don’t know how to distinguish between a product, a company, and a category of tool. I think you’re now invested in the position so you can’t pivot and say you might not understand things as much as you thought. I think that’s why you’re arguing against what you think someone who disagrees with you would say instead of actually understanding.
I understood what you wrote. It was “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” as an argument for keeping Ai around. Stop fighting so hard for something that is completely unregulated and huge net-negative for the world.
Also no, “wizards” is not what I meant. Do you even understand what you wrote? Do you understand anything? God, you’re a mess.
I’m well aware of my thoughts on the matter, and where they came from, and what I choose to do with them. I have explained them, but you don’t like what I’m saying so you’re deliberately misinterpreting my replies and then complaining about me not making sense. Don’t deflect, coward.
Oh damn, that’s some high quality irony right there.
I didn’t say you meant wizard.
Notice how I’m saying “your analogy is wrong”, not “this is what you said”.
It’s really difficult to believe you when you say you understood what I was saying when your takeaway was more about AI than about art. Or when you liken my point to a common anti-gun regulation slogan when I’ve been specifically saying we should regulate them?
You know what? Let’s use guns as a direct swap. You’re arguing that guns are antithetical to art, and that no self respecting artist would use a gun in their artwork. I’m saying that guns should obviously be regulated and people shouldn’t do bad things with them, but that saying they make something not art is foolish.
You actually really haven’t explained your thoughts on the matter. You’ve several times said that you won’t but adamantly insisted you were right. You also seem to ignore anything that’s contrary to the argument you want me to be making, which is another little glob of fun in the “deliberate misunderstanding” irony train.
You haven’t convinced me you understand your thoughts or where they came from. I’m more convinced than ever that you’re just upset to be disagreed with and can’t handle not getting someone else’s argument. You’ve been railing either against something I don’t think, or against actual technical details of how something works.