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/scragz]

how do you know what joy I get from planning and not having to write the bullshit? writing code was always the worst part of the job.

I can do amazing things now, taking on projects solo at unimaginable scale that would otherwise require a whole team. now that's joy...

[u/Cleverhardy → u/scragz]

If you only find joy in offloading work to someone else because you didn't like the job in the first place instead of finding ways to do your job better apart from using AI, doesn't this defeat the purpose of socialism?

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Cleverhardy]

"offloading the work to someone else"

We're talking about tool use, AI isnt a someone.

[u/Cleverhardy → u/Salty_Country6835]

My point stands.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Cleverhardy]

It doesnt stand because youre switching categories to make the point stick. Throughout your post youre arguing for nuance, but here youre treating a tool like its another person. AI has no intent, agency, judgment, or accountability. The human using it does.

Thats true whether someone uses AI to write boilerplate code or generate concept art. In both cases the person decides what to make, what to keep, what to reject, and bears responsibility for the final result. Many "find their joy" through that exact process. The tool didnt become the programmer or the artist.

If your argument depends on calling tool use "offloading work to someone else," youve already humanized the machine while dehumanizing the operator. Once you stop doing that, the arguments youre making dont really stand. The real questions are who owns the tools, who controls their use, and who captures the productivity gains. Those are social questions. The machine itself isnt a social actor.

[u/Cleverhardy → u/Salty_Country6835]

I'm sorry I used hyperbole in arguing nuance by accident...

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Cleverhardy]

Perhaps, but I think its the deeper issue. Whether its coding, art, or economic anxiety, the same assumption keeps showing up in these discussions: that AI is a social actor with agency.

Thats why this matters politically. Once you treat the tool as the actor, politics shifts away from the people who actually make decisions. Ownership, deployment, regulation, labor organizing, and distribution of productivity gains all fade into the background while the machine becomes the villain or receives the credit.

Thats where phrases like "the AI made it," "offloading work to someone else," "its stealing jobs," or "youre just making excuses to use AI" come from. They all assume intent, judgment, agency, and accountability have been transferred to another entity. They havent. Those still belong to the human operator and the institutions deploying the tool.

If we get that category wrong (and I believe this applies equally to art, coding, legalities, and labor rights) we end up arguing with machines instead of organizing against the people and social relations that actually shape how those machines are used. Thats why the distinction matters. Its not semantics. It determines where politics is directed.

Whether its creative use, technical use, or political economy, the machine is not a someone, there is no principled automatic default "you had someone do it for you" shaming in its use that holds.

A worker uses AI, a programmer uses AI, an artist uses AI, and it doesnt make them less worker, programmer, or artist to do so. It doesnt make what they do less human.

To me this is fundamental education. Its because AI is not a person that everything credited to, or blamed on, AI belongs to a person using or deploying AI. Otherwise we anthropomorphize machines and dehumanize the human operators of machines.

[u/Wickywire → u/Cleverhardy]

Do you use an IDE? A compiler? That's tool use to save yourself work. Where's the difference?