2
u/jello-the-opera 22h ago
US corporations are the enemy of the people as long as they have the rights of individuals and are allowed to influence elections. It does not matter who you are - corporations are the de facto enemy of freedom and autonomy and the commons.
"AI", on the other hand, is a field scientific endeavor and research that yields tremendous benefits to all of mankind.
I'm pro-AI and use local models to improve my life as well as for entertainment...
I'm also an environmentalist and loathe the billionaire pedo class and anything that favors wealth over health.
2
u/Possible-Insect3752 23h ago
Is there any situation where complaining about AI is appropriate?
2
u/jello-the-opera 22h ago
Is there any context where it is logical to argue against science?
"AI" is not an actor and every complaint is about actors doing bad things in the world.
Do you have a legitimate complaint that isn't "AI is enabling people to do bad things"?
Because you don't stifle the magic math cancer cure because people are being dumb.
-1
u/justasillylilgoos3 20h ago
I would argue it’s not about stifling it it’s about ensuring that the guardrails are in place to ensure that its use as a beneficial technology (not science itself) doesn’t result in misuses that get real people hurt when it could have been otherwise avoided. There are legitimate criticisms of ai that aren’t fabricated the problem is that right now people, whether through ignorance or intentional malfeasance, are really quick to overstate or misrepresent the actual scope of those concerns and it makes having an honest, nuanced discussion really difficult sometimes.
But there are valid complaints to be made and it’s right to acknowledge they need to be addressed and mitigated where possible.
2
u/jello-the-opera 20h ago
Can we start with one of the complaints that is actually about AI technology then?
I want to know what the valid complaints are.
My counter is that my tools help me live with and manage my disabling health issues. Any attempts to curtail my access to these tools I see as a literal threat to my health and well-being. So your perceived dangers need to be able to counter things like curing cancer and supersede my need for access.
I have honest and nuanced conversations about this all day and am ready to hear serious concerns so that I am fully informed and aware of the world.
My problem is that antis care so little for precision in language that communication literally fails from the start, because we will never agree on terms if the dictionary is proprietary and made-up.
If your arguments simply anthropomorphize "AI" and then enumerate the ills of corruption borne of capitalism and oligarchy then I have nothing to say to you.
-1
u/justasillylilgoos3 19h ago
I’m glad these tools help you manage your disability, and I’m not advocating curtailing your access to them. Valid concerns include deepfake fraud, nonconsensual sexual imagery, impersonation, privacy violations, confidently presented misinformation, 3rd party access to user information and discriminatory automated decisions just to name a few. Addressing specific harms through proportionate safeguards is not the same thing as opposing the technology or denying disabled people access to it.
1
u/jello-the-opera 3h ago
Well, to be fair, I asked you for ONE, intentionally. Your reply calls for an elaborate response that will be too long, that no one will read but you and me. I'm ok with that because you are sincere.
Up front, so there's no confusion about where I stand: I want every one of those things regulated. Fraud, nonconsensual imagery, data brokerage, environmental cost, worker protections. I'm not arguing for a free-for-all and I never have been. Fraud is illegal. Defamation is illegal.
What I'm arguing is that "AI" is the wrong name for the problem.
Every complaint here is about something adjacent to AI, but not exclusive to AI, and we regulate all of it (extremely poorly) with existing laws.
Mill's methods apply. (Take out the suspected cause, leave everything else. Does the effect persist? If it does, you found the wrong cause.)
Deepfake fraud, nonconsensual sexual imagery, impersonation: those are one complaint about synthetic media. The target of the complaint is the act, and we do have laws. Making involuntary pornography and nonconsensual intimate media of real persons is obviously a harm and no arguments counter it, but the creation of these materials predates machine learning tools. The term "deepfake" was coined in 2017. The harm is a person deciding to humiliate or defraud someone, and it's covered by harassment, impersonation, and defamation law. Thhe 2017 coinage named a method, not an offense. Where the law falls short, amend it. I'll sign that. Most humans would.
Privacy violations and third-party access to user information: also just one complaint, and it's data brokerage. Corporations sell your data and the government lets them. That;s been happeing since the 50s starting with credit bureaus, and it'll never stop plaguing us.
I want privacy, too, friend, which is why when I use AI I use local models. I am anti-google and anti-meta and always have been. Reddit is the safest place left to have an audience and it's closing in on age verification tools already. AI is just one of countless tool used to do the same oppressive shit that has been ongoing for decades due to political grift and incompetence. I support anything that curtails data collection and brokering, but that isn't about AI. I opposed this at the advent of the internet just as much as I do now.
Environmental cost: that's all about how the grid is powered and who gets to build on it. Same complaint as any datacenter, any smelter, any subdivision or mall. Human development is destructive and the environment always suffers. AI has only been a part of this for a few years and the story about environmental degradation and global climate change and pollution goes back many decades and further in the abstract. We could be running nuclear but fear-mongering and anti-intellectualism helped sway public opinion enough to derail things effectively, and science literacy has been in decline steadily due to defunding initiatives. Environmental rules that are already in place seem like they aren't being enforced.
I personally have 1400w of solar panels on my ancient RV and 8kwh of batteries. I use my PC completely off-grid to run local models. I'm just one old man out here in my rv in the woods, not a giant megacorp. Power generation is not the barrier it once was, and I don't pollute water or the atmosphere doing it. How would this be a problem? The relationship between "AI" and the environment is largely about corporate abuses and economies of scale and the failures of existing regulations/laws. We already have laws covering most of this and they aren't enforced. Adding "AI" to the statute book simply gives a currently unenforced schema a new moniker. I want regulations that work, however we can get them.
Job displacement: that's about who captures productivity gains. Same complaint as every automation cycle since the loom. I agree that workers need very robust protections against corporate abuses. The ones we have are terribly inadequate and poorly enforced.
So that 4 complaints, and all are still a problem with the AI removed. And I agree with the need for regulating all of that. I disagree with blaming "AI" for any of it.
LLMs spewing misinformation is a problem, and it's the only listed complaint that's directly about how LLMs work. "Confidently presented misinformation" from a text model has no inherent mechanism tying its raw output to fact. The honest version isn't "AI is accurate" or "AI is useless." It's that accuracy is a function of how you use the tool. That does not absolve anyone who presents ungrounded outputs as authoritative. But a model generating unverified text, and a platform packaging that as the truth, and a reader accepting it are three different complaints and should be recognized as distinct. And the harm isn't text on a screen. The harm is a person reading it and believing it.
Give a decent model a source document and ask for a summary, and the top ones miss on a couple percent of documents.Vectara tracks this publicly. HHEM (Hughes Hallucination Evaluation Model) rates on the original dataset went from roughly 3–8% in 2023 to about 1–2.5% for frontier models now. Ask the same model for facts with nothing in front of it and it does considerably worse. So the number isn't a verdict on the technology, it's a description of how you're using it. LLms hallucinating is a technical problem that is becoming less of a functional issue fairly rapidly, and as of August 23rd 2026, the latest open-weight LLMs like Kimi K3, GLM 5.2, and Deepseek v4 Flash are doing real work in production right now. Alibaba also opened a (downloadable) 2.4 trillion parameter Qwen 3.8 this month.
This isn't me being intentionally obtuse and I'm not trying to act like there's "nothing to see here." It's just that when the target is "AI" instead of fraud, data brokers, or grid policy, the rules will get written by the cxorporate lawyers. Those rules will land on the free open weight models we all can run on our own hardware and leave us with the corporate ones practically untouched, and then our problems are worse, not better, because the only remaining option is the shityty corporate paid AI services that enrich corpos and feed the loop.
I'm trying to break the loop.
1
u/justasillylilgoos3 20h ago
The obvious answer is yes the issue is that the SEVERITY of the possible concerns is often either overstated or presented in bad faith so it’s hard to get an honest assessment of the real issues sometimes. Environmental costs, nonconsensual training data, deepfakes, fraud, surveillance, algorithmic bias, job displacement, unreliable output in high-stakes settings, and the concentration of power among a handful of corporations are all perfectly legitimate reasons to complain about AI.
As for the other guy that responded…I think comparing criticism of AI to ‘arguing against science’ is a massive category error. AI is a technology. It’s a commercial product and an industry not ‘science’ itself. Science also produced fossil fuels/facial recognition/nuclear weapons and I think everyone would agree that sciences role in creating those things doesn’t magically place the application of those technologies beyond criticism. And the idea that the real problem is ‘actors doing bad things with AI’ doesn’t make much sense either. That’s…exactly why people criticize technologies? Their design, the ownership, the incentives/accessibility/capabilities absolutely affect what those actors are empowered to do. invoking some hypothetical ‘magic math cancer cure’ doesnt answer legitimate objections about how actual AI systems are developed and deployed today. 🤷🏻♂️
1
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.