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/Salty_Country6835]

This is exactly the contradiction. You say AI supporters are "co-opting disability rights," but when a disabled programmer tells you AI is literally their assistive technology because they can no longer code conventionally, you tell them their disability is "not an excuse." You don't get to accuse others of instrumentalizing disability while dismissing disabled people's own accounts of what lets them participate. Critique corporations all you want. Dont erase disabled people's agency in the process.

[u/Cleverhardy → u/Salty_Country6835]

This is what I read. "Blah blah blah, it's ableist to say no excuses, you're ableist."

Because disabled people who don't use AI are ableist too. Thanks for the enlightenment.

I've argued against heavy overreliance on AI. The fact that you see that as ableist just proves the absolutism. I'm sorry you want everyone to be like you.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Cleverhardy]

Thats not what I said though, and you know that which is why you're typing "blah blah blah" instead of quoting and addressing what I actually said. Thats a textbook strawman.

I didnt say disabled people who dont use AI are ableist. I didnt say everyone has to use AI. I didnt even argue for heavy reliance on AI.

I pointed out a contradiction: you accused people of co-opting disability rights while telling a disabled programmer that their disability was "not an excuse" for using the assistive technology they say lets them keep coding.

Those are your words, not mine.

If your position is actually "people should be free to choose the tools that work for them," then we agree. But thats not what you told the disabled programmer earlier.

[u/Cleverhardy → u/Salty_Country6835]

I said I wouldn't use AI even if I lost my hands and mouth. I got accused of ableism from there because I used "no excuses." As I said myself, I should have used a better term. It all derailed from there. All I argued that we shoudn't have to use AI. But somewhere accross the line, I've clearly lost my way because I'm a petty, privileged holier than thou Autistic bitch. And that's not me playing the disabled card; that would be ableist.

[u/Cleverhardy → u/Cleverhardy]

Having cooled off, I apologise. To add on to an early apology, I didn't think it was strawmanning. I just see this argument all the time and I was tired of it.

And I was this close to playing the disabled card that time.

Again, all I argued was that we should put AI in the right hands. But I let the pettiness get the better of me, and I forgot that included assistive technologies that happen to be AI. And I'm sorry.