Source (Bluesky)
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
429 points (86.7% liked)
Fuck AI
6950 readers
1253 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My issues are fundsmentally two fold with gen AI:
Who owns and controls it (billionares and entrenched corporations)
How it is shoehorned into everything (decision making processes, human-to-human communication, my coffee machine)
I cannot wait until finally the check is due and the AI bubble pops; folding this digital snake oil sellers' house of cards.
When generative AI was first taking off, I saw it as something that could empower regular people to do things that they otherwise could not afford to. The problem, as is always the case, is capitalism immediately turned into a tool of theft and abuse. The theft of training data, the power requirements, selling it for profit, competing against those whose creations were used for training without permission or attribution, the unreliability and untrustworthiness, so many ethical and technical problems.
I still don’t have a problem with using the corpus of all human knowledge for machine learning, in theory, but we’ve ended up heading in a horrible, dystopian direction that will have no good outcomes. As we hurtle toward corporate controlled AGI with no ethical or regulatory guardrails, we are racing toward a scenario where we will be slavers or extinct, and possibly both.
Except, of course, you aren't doing anything. You are no more writing, making music, or producing art than is an art director at an ad agency is. You're telling something else to make (really shitty) art on your behalf.
yes, it's just as bad as being a director
You really take no issue with how they were all trained?
*Not op but still gonna reply. Not really? The notion that someone can own (and be entitled to control) a portion of culture is absurd. It's very frustrating to see so many people take issue with AI as "theft" as if intellectual property were something that we should support and defend instead of being the actual tool for stealing artists work ("Property is theft" and all such). And obviously data centers are not built to be environmentally sustainable (not an expert, but I assume this could be done if they cared to do so). That said, using AI to do art so humans can work is the absolute peek of a stupid fucking ideas.
eh, i'll reply too. the only reason why intellectual property exists for art is because it's essentially the only way for artists to make money under this capitalist system. while i agree that a capitalist economic system is bad and that artists should be able to make a livable wage, intellectual property on art is more of a symptom of this larger problem
I just don't think that intellectual property really achieves that. It seems to me that it is a much better tool for corporate control of art and culture than for protecting small artist. Someone who is trying to pay bills with their art probably can't afford lawyers to protect that work. That said, I don't necessarily have a better solution other than just asking people to support artist directly instead of going through corporate middlemen
yeah i definitely agree, it's not the best solution, and the law is insanely biased towards the rich. hopefully one day artists will be guaranteed a livable wage for their art
Solving points 1 and 2 will also address many ethical problems people create with AI.
I believe that information should be accessible to all. My issue is not with them training in the way they did, but their monopoly on this process. (In the very same vein as Sci-Hub makes pay-walled whitepapers accessible, cutting out the profiteering publishers.)
It must be democratized and distributed, not centralized and monetized!
The way they were trained is the way they were trained.
I dont mean to say that the ethics dont matter, but you are talking as though this isnt already present tense.
The only way to go back is basically a global EMP.
What so you actually propose that is a realistic response?
This is an actual question. To this point the only advice I've seen to come from the anti-ai crowd is "dont use it. Its bad!" And that is simply not practical.
You all sound like the people who think we are actually able to get rid of guns entirely.
I'm not sure your "this is the present" argument holds much water with me. If someone stole my work and made billions off it, I'd want justice whether it was one day or one decade later.
I also don't think "this is the way it is, suck it up" is a good argument in general. Nothing would ever improve if everyone thought like that.
Also, not practical? I don't use genAI and I'm getting along just fine.
Okay, you know those gigantic data centers that are being built that are using all our water and electricity?
Stop building them.
Seems easy.
Just like how not buying guns is easy. For the people who get it.
Guns can be concealed and smuggled.
Compute warehouses the size of football fields that consume huge amounts of electricity and water absolutely can't. They can all be found extremely easily and shut down, and it would be extremely easy to prevent more from being built.
This isn't hard.
It's a weird argument to say "we could just stop doing popular things". It shows a lack of awareness. And no, explaining this doesn't mean I'm taking sides I just recognize the current reality
The right thing isn't always popular. Something being popular is not itself a good argument for a thing to be done.
Why do you think I'm saying it's the right thing? I explicitly said I wasn't arguing for it. It's pretty obvious I'm just pointing out what the rich fucks will do. Wishing upon a star won't change it
There is an option of not doing a thing just because a rich fuck wants you to. It's mind-blowing, I know.
What the fuck are you talking about? You idiots cannot fathom a world where you cannot accurately shovel words into strangers' mouths.
I'm talking about just because the rich fucks want you to use a thing, that doesn't mean you have to use the fucking thing.
Edit: But since in this case they lose money every time you use it maybe we should just automate using it as much as possible for useless shit on free accounts to speed the collapse.
Your implication seems to be I advocate for something I don't and it's dumb
Whatever dude, it's a discussion of hypotheticals. Unless Sam Altman somehow involved himself in the chat, nobody here is influencing if any of this happens.
.... exactly my point?
not really, you're all up and down the thread getting all excited about people discussing a hypothetical
unless the folks involved are extremely delusional, they already know that what they want has little to do with what will happen
I'm glad you know my point while I do not
you're a cranky one
It's not "popular" organically, it's being forced on us by people who are invested in the technology. The chatbots are being shoved into everything because they want to make them profitable despite being money holes, not because people want it.
And even if they do succeed in producing something useful. If you become dependent on a megacorp's AI to do your job, why shouldn't they charge you half your salary for the privilege?
That's what the boosters aren't talking about.
The chatbots are not profitable. They'll need to charge way more for usage at some point to actually make money; at some point investors are going to demand returns on their investments, and that's going to come out of user's pockets.
Even more of a reason it won't happen. "All the capitalists have to do is stop caring about money". Yeah ok.
Yeah, they shouldn't be popular. Tell all your friends.
Yes, fair, the existence of AI should be credited to my comments in this thread. The fact that some idiot stated on Lemmy that it's easy to stop AI though? Almost thwarted the entire operation. Next time!
New legislation: grants and licenses for server farms for such and such purposes will no longer be accepted.
Easy? Yes. As easy as eating a bag of doritos? What, do you think I'm stupid?
I'd argue it's not practical to use it.
Your argument is invalid, the capitalists are making money. It will continue for as long as there is money to be made. Your agreement and my agreement is unnecessary.
How do we fix the problem that makes AI something that we have to deal with.
Sabotage, public outrage, I dunno.
If you're arguing that people shouldn't be upset because there's no escaping it, this is an argument in favor of capitalism. Capitalism can't be escaped either.
I appreciate you taking my question a face value, you're the only one who did. Your capitalism quote worked perfectly. I was trying to use guns as my exams of shit I can't get away from.
I guess. I'm still anti-capitalism, though, but in the plant a fig tree for your grandchildren kind of sense.
Right, like how to end capitalism? I got very little, but I'm planting gardens, and not complaining that capitalism exists on /C/fuckcapitalism.
Lemmy is like the place to complain about capitalism. There are more of these fuckers here than anywhere else.
And, there is, if nothing else, value in taking public sentiment away from people who actually do really, really like capitalism. The deregulation types who would cream their pants if the FDA/USDA were barred from inspecting your food to make sure it won't poison you before you buy it.
Nah these companies don't even make money on the whole, they burn money. So your argument is invalid, and may God have mercy on your soul! 🙏
Deranged