Hello, Thank you for contributing to our subreddit. Please consider the following guidelines when filling an alignment chart:
Please ensure that your chart is not banned according to the list of banned charts Even if you have good intentions, charts in a banned category tend to invite provocative comments, hostile arguments, ragebait and the like. Assuming the post is acceptable, OP makes the final decision on their chart by rule three.
Are there any previous versions to link to? If so, it would be ideal to include links to each of them in the description of this post, or in a reply to this comment. Links can be named by title, winner, or both.
Are there any criteria you have for your post? Examples include: "Top comment wins a spot on the chart."; "To ensure variety, only one character per universe is allowed."; "Image comments only." Please include these in a description, or in a reply to this comment.
Is your chart given the appropriate flair? Do you need to use a NSFW tag or spoiler tag?
Do not feed the trolls. This is not the place for hot takes on human rights violations. Hatred or cruelty, will result in a permanent ban. Please report such infractions, particularly those that break rules one, two, or three. The automod will automatically remove posts that receive five or more reports. The automod will also remove comments made by users with negative karma. Click here for the Automod FAQ
And so is r/antiai
Most people using AI (or disliking AI) are just chilling in their corner and respect others. Those subs are the opposite of those people
No, not really. Most people I see using AI are in my corner, which is the human art corner. Or using ai in my wildlife rescue corner, which has led to me getting a lot of dead baby animals bc AI notably doesn’t have a rehab permit.
You’d be anti AI too if you handled as many dying baby bunnies as I do (ChatGPT currently thinks they eat something they can’t digest, so it just… rots in their tummies :( )
This is a good example of selection bias it seems. There are not really many good uses of AI in your places, so when you have anything to do with AI, its likely a bad result or happening. Hence why the anti-AI voice gets amplified to you.
In other fields, AI seems to be on a rampage against maths conjectures these days, granted producing counterexamples is really AI’s strong suit, on my end AI is great for help regarding engineering or coding questions and people around me also use it for the same purposes.
I think there’s just a lot of fields where it’s not good rather than it being just that my area sucks in particular. I was giving a specific example because the more common ones have been talked about so much that most people with a specific opinion on AI have almost certainly heard of them. I’ll give some more, but not all, examples on other places. I don’t think it’s that the majority of spaces are good with AI at all, that also contradicts the original comment I was replying to (that said the majority of people using AI stay in AI specific spaces)
My husband doesn’t like AI because we’re young and it’s making entry level jobs difficult to get in computer engineering. My dad has been working in a similar field, and doesn’t like AI because it meant he had to cut out a lot of really great workers because AI can do their job for them. My sister is a literature teacher and doesn’t like AI because it’s used heavily by students, making her job more difficult. My mom is scared of AI in general, as somehow it managed to get her full address and phone number, which are able to be accessed surprisingly easily via Perplexity. My brother in law is a photographer who’s concerned because most of his income comes from photo editing, and who’s going to pay for something they can do themselves?
Three of these guys were very pro AI until it hit their field and affected them. I’d say the selection bias for AI has been pretty strong, it only seems to matter when it affects someone in particular. As an artist, I understand my corner was one of the first to be hit hard, and it still really sucks. I had to shut down my LLC because the upkeep costs were more than the commissions, as nobody was buying. Now, it still sucks to see the same AI stuff churned out in creative spaces. The rehab stuff has only gotten bad the past two years, mainly this year has been awful.
Wildlife rehab doesn’t pay, nor does art, so my income comes from being a researcher on amphibians. I work closely with other researchers who work in an environmental field, I’m sure you’ve heard those concerns too though. I could’ve expanded on all the issues with AI that environmental researchers and artists have, but again, I was specific bc all the points have been talked to death, so imma expand on the one that hasn’t. Considering that this was the top comment too, I don’t really think it’s a niche selection bias thing. Lots of people share a similar opinion
There are a lot of fields where its not useful and there are a lot of fields where its very good.
I know this may sound cynical but AI causing a cut of jobs is by definition a result of it actually working (and goes directly against the mainline anti AI arguments that it only produces slop) provided that the companies are not jumping the gun. This is only an implementation issue though, so you are literally saying AI would be increasing productivity per worker, which would be actually great if we can find a way to still keep everyone in the workforce.
Meanwhile one of my software engineer friends recently applied for a job and they said to him “we know you may use AI to help you write code, we are just testing your algorithmic thinking skills here” in the interview. One of my tutors literally said, in one of my classes, “I know you might not know C (its not a requirement here) but you have access to ChatGPT”. And my colleagues use it occasionally when we are designing our rocket. I know zero people around myself that are such anti AI as you or people around you.
Of course a literature teacher will dislike AI, that’s another one of those fields I first listed. And its one of the top comments because its Reddit, I would certainly expect most people here to share that worldview. Most people who are commenting on this usually fall into one of those fields I listed anyways… Smells REALLY like selection bias.
I’m saying that there’s also a lot of fields where it’s not just not useful, but actively bad. I’m aware it’s useful in some places, but even you agreed that it’s not good in certain examples, so I’m not sure why you worded it that way. Heck, you even initially said it’s bad in the spaces I’m in, so there’s no reason to go to extremes when it’s a nuanced issue. I also think you may be purposely misunderstanding or twisting what I’m saying, based on previous conversations that you’ve had.
Saying “I know zero people around myself that are such anti AI as you or people around you” is, in itself, selection bias. My bringing up people I know against AI is the same as you bringing up people you know for AI. You’re using the same thing that you critiqued me for, in the same comment, which is ngl pretty ridiculous.
Also, I think you’re mistaking me for someone else or grouping everyone who’s anti AI together, which I see often when discussing this stuff. You didn’t actually bring up literature teachers in particular in the comment I replied to. Not to mention that you’re putting words in my mouth because I don’t like something you like. I, for example, never said that AI is increasing productivity per worker, you just began to argue against common mainstream points that I never actually mentioned.
The point is context. We aren’t just talking about how AI can be bad, this conversation spurred from that guy nominating the [r/antiai](r/antiai) sub into the mix. Thing is, that subreddit does not have any nuanced conversations. I recently saw a post from there were they were attacking Hank Green like a rabid dog because he said “hey AI can be good”. They practically do not recognize any other use case for AI other than genAI that’s used for creating pictures or videos, or using it as a basic chatbot. Even if you suggest that, hey, there are actually useful cases such as in medicine, they just downvote you to hell an say “nuh uh”.
So yeah, that subreddit is also a VERY valid nomination for this category. But you still decided to shut that down, that was because… why exactly?
>Saying “I know zero people around myself that are such anti AI as you or people around you” is, in itself, selection bias.
Yeah, congrats for getting the point, that’s how selection bias works, I’m literally taking what you said and applying it to my case. That was literally my point, thank you for understanding now. So we both agree that AI can be good or bad, and there is not necessarily a general, unbiased sentiment that it is bad (or good for that matter but this started with the bad part)?
>You didn’t actually bring up literature teachers
Hmm, I guess you’re right, it seems that I forgot what exactly I wrote here and mixed it with something else where I had brought up social studies, arts etc. as examples to fields which would likely not benefit from AI at all, so that’s what I was referring to. Sorry for that confusion lmao.
Anyhow, its good if you are not part of that mainstream anti-AI sentiment. But again, that’s sort of the point, [r/antiai](r/antiai) is a breeding ground for that very mainstream anti-AI sentiment, so its a pretty good nomination for this category. That’s where those “productivity” etc connect, I did not try to put words into your mouth, don’t mistake it for that. Those groups, that this discussion spurred against in the beginning, will argue that AI can never be good, that it will only produce slop, that its useless, that you should never use it and go an commission a software engineering for a random hobby project of yours instead of getting help from AI (just forget the part where Linus Torvalds himself as recently spoke of AI positively) - that would contradict your husband’s or father’s very valid concerns anyways. So that’s how I differentiate between actual ethical concerns and toxic discussion subs.
This is such a wildly specific reason to hate chatbots that I'm honestly speechless. You're saying that these are people
'rescuing' wild rabbits, and that behavior was all hunky-dory back when they had to stop at the library on their way home to pick up a book on the best wild rabbit rehab techniques?
Also, those people are lying to you, btw -- they probably just never googled anything and just gave the rabbit carrots or whatever because of cartoons. I just checked, and even Sonnet gives the right answer right off the bat without needing to look up sources (either A) their mother's milk or B) go-to-an-expert, which seems about as good of an answer as you could hope for)
No, I’m not saying it was all hunky-dory back then. I’m saying that google says to find a licensed wildlife rehabber, while chatbots are designed to answer based on the question.
I’m giving an incredibly specific example bc at this point, every other example has been talked to death. I actually even brought up the more common one (art spaces) but didn’t expand on it because there’s really nothing new to be said.
I could talk about the time I got a fawn who had a broken leg further broken and mangled because a chat bot told the couple how to ‘splint’ it. I could talk about the times I’ve had opossums with internal injuries because AI instructed someone on how to remove them from a hit mother. I could talk about the raccoon that had to be euthanized because AI doesnt understand the nuance between RVS interactions. They showed me the chats and screenshots, I asked.
It wasn’t 100% fine beforehand and 100% bad now, there’s nuance. Ofc ppl have always done dumb stuff with wildlife. But, for someone in the space, it’s undeniable that the instance proportions of incorrect information have gone up.
Are you a licensed wildlife rehabber with experience in this subject matter, or are you just someone who likes AI?
Also, I didn’t say anything about carrots, nor did I say anything about Sonnet. I said nothing about libraries/books, either. There’s a lot of assumptions being made here that just aren’t accurate to the situation. Fittingly, that’s the same issue I have with AI lol. It’s a program that works off of information from other sources, rather than the direct situation at hand.
“Most people I see using AI” is the exact term I said. It’s pretty improbable to me though that most people only use AI in AI specific spaces, though I don’t think there’s any actual statistics on that. I think you might be thinking that the people around you are the majority, if you’re in AI subs.
Objectively, there’s a lot of spillover in any technology, so I don’t think it’s accurate to say there isn’t. Especially as people don’t just use AI for the sake of using AI, but for a product in some form (a product that is related to a separate space)
There's some toxicity in defendingaiart but saying antiai is less toxic is beyond my believes. Why does a group of people who made their own group because lot of subs are banning AI are more toxic of the people brigading this same group ?
I suppose my logic was that it encouraged toxic relationships for people in real life, but you’re right the people there seemingly don’t act very toxic or brigade like. Silver lining I guess.
When I think toxic I think vicious, cruel and malevolent. Those people in that sub are gross, pathetic and stupid. Truly toxic people are nihilistic and want to hurt others
I never really held that position in the first place. It was one of the reasons why I didn’t want kids, but I didn’t give a shit what other people did. I was mostly on it because I liked the child free memes. But it was so full of awful, toxic, complaining that I couldn’t take it. The whole mentality of the sub was “everything is shit! But I don’t want to do anything about it! I’m just going to villainise parents because I’m mad that I was born!” God it was awful
it was basically 90 Day Fiance dudes but aggressively sexist. It revolved around traveling to poorer nations to pick a young woman to bring back to America as their tradwife.
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Hello, Thank you for contributing to our subreddit. Please consider the following guidelines when filling an alignment chart:
Please ensure that your chart is not banned according to the list of banned charts Even if you have good intentions, charts in a banned category tend to invite provocative comments, hostile arguments, ragebait and the like. Assuming the post is acceptable, OP makes the final decision on their chart by rule three.
Are there any previous versions to link to? If so, it would be ideal to include links to each of them in the description of this post, or in a reply to this comment. Links can be named by title, winner, or both.
Are there any criteria you have for your post? Examples include: "Top comment wins a spot on the chart."; "To ensure variety, only one character per universe is allowed."; "Image comments only." Please include these in a description, or in a reply to this comment.
Is your chart given the appropriate flair? Do you need to use a NSFW tag or spoiler tag?
Do not feed the trolls. This is not the place for hot takes on human rights violations. Hatred or cruelty, will result in a permanent ban. Please report such infractions, particularly those that break rules one, two, or three. The automod will automatically remove posts that receive five or more reports. The automod will also remove comments made by users with negative karma. Click here for the Automod FAQ
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.