The only solutions to what is happening right now, to me in my mind, would put me on a federal watch list. I’ve been pushed to such extremes because I cannot see how you educate those unwilling to learn. MAGA has become the largest cult in the world and we don’t have enough padded rooms for them all.

I’m not smart enough for a plan but if you give me a shovel I’ll help dig the ditches. I hope we won’t need them but I can’t see a peaceful resolution to fascist deathcamps. I don’t know how you beat that without a very messy conflict.

This wasn’t an open invitation for everyone to out themselves but sure, take care.

Obligatory this isn’t an airport you don’t have to announce your departure joke.

I’ve never shyed away from arguing with anarchists but this is already resolved so thank you? The enlightened anarchist simply has no time for the meager law loving peasants.

I’ve blocked communities and instances that don’t speak English, ones that have absurd ideological basis (anarchy supporters), and occasionally people who just say really dumb things, a lot.

I vastly prefer encouraging blocking over censorship/moderation. If someone is being an asshole, having the ability to say it, vent those feelings for a moment, then readjust is a catharsis that’s been nearly outlawed especially on platforms on like TikTok.

Obviously not everything should be permitted and everything has its limits, but the internet seems to over correct things into a passionless husk of forced friendliness. To shove people into forming a facade that feels like a shrinking cage. Sterile.

Curating my own experience has been invaluable and I highly encourage it.

Well I am one of the people rallying against generative AI. I don’t see myself as hysterical as I am opposing the negative effects of generative AI.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say you only oppose the negative effects of generative AI while undermining it entirely. You aren’t “opposing the negative effects of generative AI.” you are opposing generative AI at the least and from what I can tell, AI in general.

And news stories highlighting the negative effects of AI are “opinion peices” now?

Do you genuinely not understand the difference between an article reporting news and a bias hit-piece serving to prop up your pre-existing beliefs while ignoring any evidence to the contrary? These articles are no more news than Mein Kampf is an expert account of WWII and it’s extraordinarily bad faith to pretend otherwise.

I would love to hear more of the contradictions from us anti AI people as the one you gave is not a contradiction.

Pulling from the bottom of the last responses, you seem to like the idea of being a luddite yet enjoy and prosper from their failure. The device you use for instance, the clothes you wear, the food you eat. It’s interesting that even with that hindsight you’ll allow the fear of short term job loss to effectively kill technologies that can be used to advance oneself exponentially.

And they specifically say that new models of AI must be developed. The reason I said that is because AGI is an entirely different conversation than the one we are having now.

"such as fixed context windows, lack of explicit memory, inability to learn and react to real-time feedback from environments, and inefficiency and challenges in complex reasoning tasks”

This is the contradiction I spoke of. Where you can seemingly rally against the destruction or at least heavy scaling back of “generative AI” (or even all of AI) yet when presented with the chance by seemingly ethically acting individuals to ‘reboot’ the architecture to be stronger, faster, and capable of so much more than data scraping you… support it wholeheartedly? You want “new models” of AI yet how will you better control it against the perceived negatives you’ve stated you’re against? Even now with ethical guardrails being put in after the fact, people have found ways around it and continue to do so in order to make AI do what it specifically was told not to do. It sounds akin to a peace activist voicing their excitement over bigger bombs with larger ranges.

So… you use a film as an example for your point? Do you really think that the filmakers put no thought about the message that piece of art portrayed? That they did not think about how its framing would get people to think and introspect? Almost like the filmakers were trying to say something.

I used a Television Series to explain that art does not need to communicate in order to be meaningful to oneself. That I don’t need to know who made it, why they made it, or even the title of the work to examine how it makes me feel. Which, yes, to the contrary of my point the show makes clear through other dialog. The show helped unlock how I view art as a whole but the art itself, the painting, did not communicate that. The art is not responsible for communicating to me what I feel about a work, if it was, we’d all come away with the same conclusion.

Why do you think that people with money are financing AI? Also the articles I linked talked about how OpenAI is losing money on a $200 a month plan. Meaning it costs more than $200 a month to service a single AI user that uses it at a high level.

Was that not the point you made when you referred to Uber being propped up in the same way? Why be concerned on the expenses of a company you are not investing in or is being subsidized by the government? If you’re concerned about the environmental impact in terms of water usage, you have my complete support in regulation which would limit their usage. However, that’s not what you’re saying, is it? Who is paying the “$200 a month” and why should you or I care?

I didn’t know the google was actively promoting gift card scams, or that cash transfer apps were promoting drug dealing.

Is it your assertion then that the creators of OpenAI are actively encouraging people use their services for illegal or unethical activities?

So artist’s work being used on mass without their permission has zero ethical ramifications?

What’s unethical about it? We already have laws which state if you use creative works that aren’t sufficiently altered, you cannot be allowed to profit off them or claim credit for said works. We have, since the dawn of DMCA, had the ability to take a work, modify it “enough” and sell it within legal and ethical frameworks. There are robust creative protections with songs to where if you record yourself singing Firework by Katy Perry, you can sell that recording and not send a dime to her. Why? Because your voice and instruments are different enough that all the other similarities don’t matter - you can profit off that work.

Now, I heavily disagree with about 80% of the DMCA and believe it’s woefully outdated but no, if you put out work publicly and it’s used in a data set I don’t think legally or ethically you need to be compensated however I would more readily support AI architecture that does pay for their training sets especially on work that isn’t lingering on the open web. It might make you and I both feel a little violated knowing millions of data scraping scripts exist designed to take and repurpose every kilobyte of content on the internet, but it’s neither illegal nor unethical.

https://thenib.com/im-a-luddite/

Fuck I love extreme left propaganda. The extreme right makes idiots feel like a hardened warrior, surrounded on all sides, but you have the strength to persist while extreme left shit just makes otherwise educated individuals feel stupid and afraid. How dare you not realize all these threats around you, are you dumb? You support something I don’t, have you considered it could be turned into the most oppressive, worldwide threat of our time?

If you have a point to make, using the propaganda that makes you feel good is typically the worst way to convey that point to anyone who doesn’t already agree. It’s circlejerk material you should safe for your buddies, not evidence or a convincing point.

My grandfather actually died of stomach cancer from chewing tobacco. Go fuck yourself you luddite prick.

First, I do not appreciate being called hysterical.

I am not calling you, personally, hysterical. I am referring to the groups that broadly rally against AI, even exclusively generative, as hysterics due to the extreme emotions associated with the technology. Their arguments are closely aligned with your own and are constantly riddled with contradictions and assertions that have little basis if any. Yes I see you’ve hotlinked many articles, unfortunately opinion pieces such as and others don’t interest me because they too are full of appeals to emotion to invoke fear and panic.

The benefits of generative AI on the other hand are less clear while the costs are far greater and more salient.

I’m not going to flood this response with citations of opinions, that’s not going to be helpful, but I’m positive you can grasp how giving everyone the ability to readily generate media can be a benefit. ‘Slop’ has existed since the dawn of internet and has only rapidly ramped up with two major things changing. The term used to be ‘Spam’ and I can’t say I’ve noticed a very big change. The strongest argument I believe those who oppose AI have is that while ‘Spam’ was disruptive, ‘Slop’ is increasingly difficult to detect. Yet, as with photoshop or other tools that manipulate media more slowly, tools will be developed that can differentiate between AI generation and human generation. The moment between a new technology and those rails are turbulent but the wild calls to action to kill the technology outright is bizarre to say the least.

Also, please do not opine the benefits of artificial general intelligence.

Sources such as https://aaai.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AAAI-2025-PresPanel-Report-Digital-3.7.25.pdf (Page 44) I widely agree with because it identifies the bad uses of AI, calls for unified effort for regulatory safeguards to be put in place, and at no point attempts to discredit its usefulness or demean the technology as a whole. Your own source is opining the benefits of artificial general intelligence.

The architecture that is currently being developed is not the way to get to that.

Respectfully, unless you directly work with AI or have the credentials/sources to support that opinion, I can’t take your word for it. Something other than “Why ChatGPT is dogshit” articles would be appreciated. I’m trying desperately to use the sources you’ve given me but wading through articles of emotionally charged individuals is exhausting.

If you see art as nothing but a product to be consumed, then yes AI will eventually be able to produce something good. But if you instead see it as a form of communication, as I do, then AI ‘art’ strips away all but the most superficial of communication from said art.

Art can be a form of communication but to say that it is only a form of communication and the prospect of a ‘creatorless’ piece of art, devoid of purposeful intent is somehow worth less or even meaningless I believe it more a personal testament than anything. I enjoy art because it allows me to introspect. To allow the thoughts which control my inner monologue to fall away so that everything left can simply ponder. A blank canvas with exclusively white paint used, titled “Hare in a Snowstorm” can easily be mocked as having no effort or even joked about but personally it was the first time I was absolutely captivated by a piece of art. (Yes, a fictional piece of work in DareDevil was the first time I ‘understood’ what art means to me.)

It is not cheap, ecologically or financially. The only reason it is as cheap as it is to the end user is thanks to the massive amount of money being pumped into it. It is the same reason that Uber was so cheap for so long. This is also completely ignoring the moral cost.

Individually, the cost of generating an image seems to be hard to find. All I can find with the articles you’ve linked is that at scale AI is expensive which yes, I agree. Nearly millions of images being generated and deleted at scale is expensive but if we’re not footing the bill, who is? Like with Uber, Uber and their investors are. Using the technology is costing rich people with money… and I’m struggling to find the moral ramifications. How are the people who use generative AI being targeted for rich companies buying up property and using it to support AI when nothing was stopping said companies from doing this prior to the ‘AI boom’?

Arguing morality to me is tough because these companies and investors already had the finances to do what they’re doing, they’re just being grossly misguided into the AI bubble and putting money down on it. They were already going to use that money in morally dubious ways to make more money, this is just their chosen outlet.

It is difficult to see it that way when the largest people in the space are explicitly promoting the use of the tool in said nefarious way.

Tell me then, why don’t we blame Google gift cards for scamming the elderly? Why are international scammers taking the heat when the technology of gift cards is being abused so that Google and others like them can make money off tech support scams? Or what about getting mad at cash transferring apps like Cash App or PayPal for allowing free money to transfer between drug dealers and their clients? Why does that sound absurd but villainizing AI as a whole for internet con artists seem entirely fine?

The most coherent way I can argue why AI generation should exist is that artists, game developers, and similar creators are already being worked under inhumane conditions. Put to work with a “metaphorical” gun to their head. Why should AI generation not be used to reduce workload? Why should this technology be scrapped entirely when it’s already shown it can produce a battery of simple content that can be expanded on by a more skilled hand? It’s frustrating to me because the arguments always seem to water down to another Luddite movement. Would it be less hurtful to be called an “AI Luddite” I wonder?

AI is better at volume, speed, and the details are often good enough to fool people into believing it’s real. That, by definition, is not slop. Abundance and a lack of quality defines “slop” but if we’re discussing the quality of art, that becomes subjective almost immediately. Yes you can point to 7 fingered hands and I can just as easily point to a beautiful landscape that’s never existed.

I’m not even sure you can call it cheap when yet another argument posed by AI hysterics is that it’s so expensive the servers that are being water cooled are actively accelerating climate change.

AI is being used to perpetuate what was already happening, more efficiently. Yes, it’s much easier to generate decent or even good assets to wallpaper over actual slop. It’s the makeup of choice to masquerade the modern con artist, to that I don’t disagree.

But to fault a tool for being attractive to those which use it nefariously isn’t just a misunderstanding, it’s the peak of ignorance.

What makes my position difficult is that I understand the logic of where you’re coming from, that AI in its current state regularly produces slop. However, AI hysterics speak out of both sides of their mouth on this issue.

AI is either slop that can never live up to the creative intricacies the human mind can fabricate, that it is little more than a simple imitation of what we have, rather than new and budding ideas from talented human beings.

Or

AI is a dangerous technology that serves to completely eclipse and replace artists as well as other professions and should be actively sabotaged or legislated against to be defeated before it has the chance to become even stronger than it is.

I understand having a bias, but it’s important to not react to things out of fear or anger especially when it’s misused by others. I want AI to become a titanic force for good and to have that opinion in a sea of people desperate to murder it in the womb is exhausting to say the least.

Comparing it to a chef is one of many disingenuous analogies that serve to perpetuate the idea that AI is bad, will always be bad, and should be cast aside now to spare everyone the trouble.

If I ever get through a Trump tweet and can follow the logic, it’s not him writing it

… So you’re saying they have a large sample of data to pull from and give a recipe they believe will work based on that data? I don’t like this analogy…

Chefs regularly make recipes…