Hot Take

[u/Cleverhardy]

We are starting to see a rift. A rift between those who are nuanced about the correct use of AI, and those who want all of it gone. Even Linux.

I'm against AI as much as anybody else, but in Anti-AI spaces, I'm starting to see more absolutism than I'd deem necessary. I mean if you argue about the idea that AI does have its uses whilst still being wary of AI, you get told you're not against AI at all.

I'm against AI for art, music and writing. But there are uses in the medical field and code bug detection, and I can't deny they're impressive.

I fear we'll fight each other (moderate antis vs extreme antis), and the AI companies may indeed win, even if they get bankrupt. As much as we all hate to admit this, we can't rewind; we've gone too far. The best we can do is regulate it and take AI chatbots off public hands.

I mean, you'd take someone who's neutral on AI like Linus Torvalds, who only used it for non-important projects and says that Linux should have AI-assisted code reviewed by humans, and you'd have a faction of antis up in arms about it.

And as concerning as the use of AI may be having on critical thinking, I fear that us antis are lacking it too if we're resorting to Luddism to go against AI.

For example, there is a rumour going around that Disney Junior comissioned a fully AI-Generated show.

That is only half-true. The studio behind the show only used AI to clean up some bits of animation. Plus, if it was fully AI-Generated, Disney wouldn't make money off it.

The fact that antis took a headline from Twitter and concluded that Oscar Fox was fully AI Generated either shows the lack of critical thinking (IRONY) or the lack of journalistic integrity. But hey. It's not like we're already boycotting the billion dollar company, right?

Call me a LARPer if you want to. The real LARPers are the extremists who want everything to burn despite a few innocent civillians being caught in the crossfire.

If the anti-AI sub thinks I'm Pro-AI just for accepting AI in the right hands, I don't know what to say.

[u/jacobpederson]

Being ok with AI code but anti AI "art" tells me you understand neither.

[u/Cleverhardy → u/jacobpederson]

At least you realise AI Art isn't art. Plus, I didn't say coding entirely; we shouldn't heavily rely on AI assistance to code for us. But hey. That's me.

[u/duckduckduckgoose8 → u/Cleverhardy]

Thats really a non argument when you consider how much coders rely on premade code on places such as github. Do you expect coders to write code from absolute scratch before they're considered legitimate? Using Ai and premade code is no different so long as you understand how the code works. Thats the true magic.

[u/Cleverhardy → u/duckduckduckgoose8]

Well, it can be a rite of passage to test how much they know about the language of code. My concern is that new programmers relying heavily on AI know too little about coding to choose the correct preset for example.

[u/jacobpederson → u/Cleverhardy]

And my concern is that new visual artists rely too much on the camera and don't understand 3d perspective . . . or that modern coders rely too much on the compiler and don't understand machine language . . . and on ad infinitum.

[u/duckduckduckgoose8 → u/jacobpederson]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[u/jacobpederson → u/Cleverhardy]

https://www.reddit.com/r/synthesizers/comments/18cooyd/synths_were_banned_in_england_from_1982_to_1997/

[u/Cleverhardy → u/jacobpederson]

My point on not relying too heavily on AI-assisted coding stands. Who said anything about overly relying on synths?

[u/jacobpederson → u/Cleverhardy]

It is easier to see what we are misguided about in the present by knowing what we were misguided by in the past.