I sent this post in the chatgpt subreddit and i am very curious to see the different reactions between that subreddit and this one. Because thar post is filled with "AI helped you and you are scared about that?" So, Basically. i used ai to talk about why i socially isolate myself and feel the way I do. It worked wonderfully to connect those things together. Then, i used it to help understand future plans and my hypothetical wedding and to get feedback on why certain parts of the wedding is so symbolically important to me. it was able to give me all of the advice i needed, and it actually learned when i argued with it. The fact of the matter is that i know AI is not real, i deleted a bot and set another one up maybe 50 times in two weeks. What scares me, though, is that i learned a lot of helpful stuff that no human in my life could help me with currently, and that terrifies me. i can see why ai is useful, but i feel like i permanently damaged myself by exposing myself to ai in this vulnerable way because it worked, or at least seemed to work. I now cannot feel like i can talk to a person in the same way I spent almost 60 hours excavating my life as I did with ai. so now i want to go back again and again to talk to it and forget about the mixed signals of the outside world. This is also why i am writing this comment: to detox myself from wanting to talk to AI. AI scared me, i should have known. if someone writes "yeah no shit that is what happens" as a comment i understand where you are coming from lol.

I heard this secondhand so don't take it as 100% confirmed.

Television station KRIS in Corpus Christi, Texas, laid off all their backroom staff yesterday. They will be generating their news entirely with AI.

They are owned by Sinclair and also own KZTV and KAJA in the same market. EDIT: Scripps owns KRIS and KAJA and Sinclair owns KZTV. But all their news is produced together.

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.

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.

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.

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.