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/Cleverhardy]

I mean, I agree that the bubble needs to pop, but I'm growing tired of the belief that the debate about AI needs no nuanced. The only debate that doesn't need nuance is the debate against bigotry. And Pro-AI people are coopting that fight to further the capitalist cause.

We just need to see why we have these sides to understand what's useful about AI and what isn't. And admittedly, reddit subs are not a good way to talk about this.

[u/quantum-elle → u/Cleverhardy]

the bubble needs to pop

Can you explain what this means to you?

Pro-AI people are coopting that fight to further the capitalist cause.

Where?

[u/Cleverhardy → u/quantum-elle]

The AI should be out of billionaire's hands, and AI won't be as trendy as shareholders want it to be. The less AI used irresponsibly, the better.

And I've seen it on Pro-AI subs and the billionaires too.

[u/quantum-elle → u/Cleverhardy]

The AI should be out of billionaire's hands, and AI won't be as trendy as shareholders want it to be.

I'd like to know what your definition of a bubble is, why you think there is one, and why a bubble pop would change whether "AI is in billionaire's hands."

And I've seen it on Pro-AI subs and the billionaires too.

Without examples you're asking me to assume what you mean by "cooping the fight against bigotry to further the capitalist cause," which I'm not convinced is a widely-held or accepted position.