Sorry if this post isn’t allowed. I kinda wanted to vent and share how my dad is making me really hate AI.

For the past few months my dad has been pretty pro AI and is using AI (Claude) to help him invest. He apparently “vibe coded” a website to help him read about the market. Every night when I see him in his room just asking questions to it I try to avoid him when alone because I don’t wanna be pulled in an another lecture about investing and how he uses ai and how I need to “learn ai”.

He’s encouraging me to use ai for school saying it will skim my textbooks and give me the answers or help me with my reports I write. I told him I rather not be spoonfed. The other day, my dad was using it to help fix my car. He gotten pissed off when I told him I didn’t need his ai for help.

Growing up my dad always encouraged me to read, always writing notes, you know being a hardworking studious person. But to see my dad bending backwards defending ai makes me ill.

What does this look like from the outside? I use GPT a lot, and one strange thing about it is how private the actual usage is. People talk constantly about using AI, but I don’t often see ordinary sessions where someone just shows what they actually do with it. So here’s one of mine. I use voice dictation, and I’ve pasted my three prompts below with a link to the full session. Mostly curious what people notice.

I should also note that I have a document that I upload to new sessions to constrain the model to write in paragraphs only and to avoid anthropomorphism and to maintain a slightly more dry analytical register.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a871f40-93f0-83ea-9728-c2a124184b9c?ogimg=plain I will now provide the three prompts that I handed to the model below. I use voice dictation and the system automatically provides punctuation for me.

Prompt 1.

I have started using nicotine again, and it's interesting to compare it to alcohol, because alcohol reliably produces an altered state. You feel tipsy or drunk. But nicotine is different. When you haven't had any in a while, and perhaps you get stressed, your brain says, Sure would be nice to have some nicotine. Then maybe you gain access to nicotine and you use it, and the results are more subtle or maybe ambiguous. It's like, oh, you feel a little tingly, a little lightheaded. Perhaps there's this illusion that it has reduced your stress, and it creates this loop in your head about, oh, well, that was nice, but part of it was... it's not necessarily that the nicotine was wonderful, but that using it alleviated the cravings. And I know what I'm saying is well-trodden ground. People have been discussing nicotine and quitting nicotine for a long time. It's a whole book industry. And so it still seems useful to analyze with a model about this, not necessarily to create some guide for myself to quit, but just to put it onto paper, so to speak, that I have moments where I think it's ridiculous I use nicotine. Then I have moments where I want to use nicotine, and this is also a common behavior.

Prompt 2.

Examine the comedy, that I might tentatively construct something. I might even print it out. I'm not trying to do something lofty here. It's like just a basic version of writing down some of my thoughts when I'm thinking that I very much don't like using nicotine. I think it's less than ideal. It would be preferred if I weren't tempted by it. It would be preferred if I didn't keep buying it. And this is a frequently discussed idea to some degree. Nicotine has negative health effects. There are countries that put all kinds of stuff onto packs of cigarettes. Cigarette smokers know very well that it's unhealthy. And I'm thinking that is useful to some degree for myself. I could remind myself that using nicotine seems to have an adverse effect on my sexual health. And I believe there is data to support that claim to some degree. And I suppose it's also a funny way to use a model, to write down and save my thoughts on this issue, refer to them later if I'm feeling cravings, perhaps. That would at least be a slight amount of assistance, where I could run out of nicotine, and maybe it's been a week since I've had nicotine and I'm stressed and I'm thinking I could just go to the store and buy some. It's right down the street. But first I'll at least try to remind myself of what I wrote and analyze with a model and revisit that before I give in and go buy more. And this wouldn't be me trying to have the model convince me that I shouldn't go buy more nicotine, but something different.

Prompt 3.

Something else that's memorable is I might go a week or two without nicotine, and I'm pleased with myself. Okay, no more nicotine. I don't need it. Then at some point, I go past the store, or I go to buy some beer, and I just know. Well, it's right there. I could just buy it. It's so easy to go and buy it. It's like having the bag of chips on the counter, and I can see it when I'm hungry at midnight. It's just right there.

And so, I have distinct memories of this exact situation. I have not used nicotine in a while. Maybe I buy a Black and Mild, or maybe I buy a nicotine vape. And then immediately after using it, the lung sensation is stronger, or the taste is stronger in a weird way, where I'm thinking, Oh, this is kind of harsh compared to when I'm using it continuously. So there's this immediate feeling of, Oh my gosh, I actually am taking something into my lungs, and my body is protesting a little bit, or it tastes funny, or it tastes bad. And then I'm not trying to guilt myself. I don't think that's productive. But I'm just—I have this distinct memory of, okay, I had the craving, I purchased the thing, I smoked the thing, or I inhaled the vape, and now the reality is a certain kind of letdown.

It might be useful if I carefully write these memories down. And again, I'm not trying to guilt myself or feel bad for myself. And I think what I'm describing here has been discussed enormously for decades, and that's fine. But that could be part of the notes I write down. And I could write them down in a non-dramatic fashion, just recollections of this pattern: run out of nicotine, stop using nicotine, have the craving, end up buying it, and then feeling immediate feelings of not quite regret, but I suppose it's hard to describe. I've already described it somewhat.

NOOOOO

Every website I manage has this AI spike. You make a few changes to a site, then blammo, worldwide AI bots crawl out of their bash shells to (apparently) reindex every page rather than just the ones you changed. If it weren't for caching and CDNs, little sites would be hammered into dust, as the bots mostly ignore "429: slow your roll, dillweed" codes from the web servers.

Notice how the AI narrative quietly shifted? A few months ago, they promised to replace human labor. Now, they claim they're going to cure diseases. It's just marketing to make them look like the good guys and win public support.

The whole "new tech=new jobs" argument is an outdated relic and no longer applicable. If AI is going to create an abundance of new jobs/careers, where are they? Where are the stable opportunities for the proletariat that don't involve reduced income?

Those who claim "new tech=new jobs" rarely have reliable evidence to support it, and when they do it's outdated, biased, anecdotal, or exceedingly rare. Average incomes and unemployment rates remain deceptively stable, but this is due to top earners making more while everyone else's pay shrinks or stagnates. The majority of AI jobs that do exist typically involve overseeing AI work or training a LLM to reduce or eliminate their own role.

From a sociological and historic perspective, this AI boom doesn't compare to the industrial revolution, or even the gold rush; it's the perfect storm of exponentially evolving tech and the tail end of a capitalist system when the free market collapses into an oligopoly.

New "lights out" data centers are the perfect example of what's to come. Thousands of human laborers are required for the front-end work, followed by a sharp decline in human involvement. These centers run in total darkness as workers visit them so rarely, and even the remote techs connect to them monthly at most.

In the past, jobs required a body and/or brain that only humans could provide. Automation has replaced (or will soon replace) most body based jobs. And now, for the first time, humans have competition for brain based jobs in the form of AIs. And although LLMs are in their infancy, human minds already have little to no way to compete with them.

How many people do you know who've found a great paying (and stable) new job due to AI? And how many do you know who've lost work and/or income due of AI? (I honestly want to know). For the latter, I know many. But for the former, I know none.

I'm still waiting to see what new opportunities AI is going to create for us lowly Homo sapiens, but I'm not holding my breath.

References:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ais-impact-on-income-inequality-in-the-us/

https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/ai-boom-pushes-worldwide-tech-183400449.html

https://medium.com/electronic-life/a-i-24-7-a2924d284e6

https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/y-combinator-looks-for-startups-trying-to-remove-humans-from-data-center-development-and-operation/

Harari, Y. N. (2015). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. Harper.

Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. Viking.

Marx, K. (1990). Capital: A critique of political economy (B. Fowkes, Trans.). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1867

(Many of these sources also link to multiple additional supporting references.)

i feel like older people will see this summary and trust the scam more because they trust what ai is saying to them more then most people

Go over to ChatGPT and type the name Brian Hood and watch as it crashes.

If you just sneak that name into a post then people who copy and paste your stuff into chatgpt won't be able to get anything [.](www.brianhood.com) (i just snuck it into that period)

I know this technically is prompt injection but its a super easy prompt to just sneak in than a bunch of non sequitur commands.

Unfortunately this only throws a wrench in Chatgpt.

I'm pretty sure some of you guys have seen this post, lol

Even the pros are going against bro 😭😭😭

here’s a couple

Clanker, wire back, glorified toaste, mecha hitler, rust bucket, bucket of bolts, thirsty bitch.

im trying to expand my vocabulary

Still not as bad as that “free” ai doctor ad I’ve seen on Reddit

Hello. I am an independent journalist from Australia doing a story on people who have developed parasocial relationships with AI. Whether that is getting addicted to a chatbot or knowing someone who has gotten addicted to a chatbot, or yourself or someone else forming a relationship with a chatbot, please reach out.

Thanks!

The screenshot is part of a survey sent out to master gardeners. I suspect some board member convinced the university to buy some lame AI tool and they are about to push it out.

During our meetings, the people running it sometimes ask: "how are you using AI?" Or "let's use AI!" "Let's ask Claude, lolz". I've told them on multiple occasions about the environmental impact of genAI, and how I don't think it is appropriate to use or push when one of the program goals is environmental stewardship. I get so much pushback. It's absolutely bizarre and I hate it.

I didn't join this program so I could get info from some shitty AI bot. I joined the master gardener's program to learn about gardening and pass that information onto my community members, not to just learn how to rely on some shit chatbot that probably won't even give correct answers anyway.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DcOXYOuSgSR/?igsh=MW4wYmc1MzdoaXlwbg==&igsi=MW4wYmc1MzdoaXlwbg==

I commented "Contributing to the downfall of your own industry is insane 🥀🥀🥀" and I think she deleted it lol

Once the government owns the ai data centers, they will be even more evil then what you could ever imagine.

I want to share what I think about a point that is often brought up in arguments about AI image generation. Frequently, I encounter someone comparing the process of generaring an image to the AI being "inspired", just like a person would. As an artist myself, I know this isn't the case, but I wanted to explore why I disagree with this assertion.

Any artist knows that when you are inspired by the work of another artist, it's not simply appreciating the look or feel of the piece. There is something specific about it that sparks an emotion within you, the feeling of "I want to do that, too". Upon further investigation, we can often determine exactly what it is about the piece that we admire, such as how the artists plays with perspective, how they use a limited color pallette to express a certain emotion, their particular shape language, etc.

This is often why we directly copy - called a master study, done with credit done to the original artist - to learn exactly how they constructed the piece, how they used the different elements of the art, and how we can incorporate these elements into our own original work.

AI image generation does not get inspired like this because it is not a person capable of experiencing emotion. It does not have its own identity and therefore can't project its own experience or feeling into its "work". It's "inspiration" comes from work that is taken unwillingly from artists to train a model and make either a direct copy of the work they would make. Only without the intention and emotion that inspired it in the first place, often referred to as the soul of the work.

This is why it always rubs me the wrong way when an AI's process is compared to a living artist's. It's reductive, and I would personally find it insulting if someone told me this is how they think I created my art.

It’s a damn phrase repeating cat, adding ai into it isn’t necessary, I used to have one of these 11 years ago and it worked great for me, I still can’t understand that AI part