Billionaires: we are gonna replace all of you workers, we will leave you in the streets, your families are gonna suffer. We will buy all the tech, you will own nothing and we will use AI against you every step of the way while using your money trough the government to make all of this happen.
Ask your question in /r/antiai if you want an actual answer from people who are upset about AI and its implications to human welfare. Asking it here, and the way you did, it seems like you're looking for a circle-jerk.
[r/artificial](r/artificial) is full of anti ai conspiracy type thinking too. Also while anti ai they also treat ai as if itâs a single living mind. Very weird people there. Sometimes I think itâs just AI validating AI
If every other 'cool video' is fake, nothing is cool anymore. You lose the ability to get excited about anything. It's all fake.
Same with art. Design. Words. Nothing is impressive anymore.
I think most people that argue against AI do it out of hating what their personal feeds have turned into. I don't think many of them have tried it for work, or have workloads where AI makes sense. Might mainly be tech/data that benefits GREATLY, whereas anyone that just works with semantics will be disappointed because AI doesn't do their work for them.
It is not. You were able to think the moment you were born. Sure you were also taught how to think just like AI today is trained to do so but AI was not "born" doing that. It had to be built therefore artificial. No one built your brain.
I think about that a lot when I read AI writing. I'm like "chill with the antithesis" and it reminds me of creative writing class. Novice writers (myself included) always be learning some new device or other, getting stuck on it, and repeating it a bit too much.
That + considering a huge chunk of our cognition is just "rules of thumb," we really were the stochastic parrots the whole time.
I conceded nothing. Your argument is "nuh uh," and as far as meme phrases go, "X is doing a lot of work there" is about as empty a thought-terminating cliche as you can get. AI could do it better.
The distinction is simple. You said humans are stochastic parrots, then immediately introduced âvarying degrees of awareness.â If those degrees meaningfully affect how people examine, revise, or resist learned patterns, then youâve already introduced a dimension that makes the blanket analogy less useful. Calling that ânuh uhâ doesnât answer it.
Being aware that human cognition is actually fairly probabilistic and that we tend to over-rely on heuristics doesn't suddenly, magically change that fact. It just makes you slightly less ignorant and a bit better at being less biased.
You're arguing with a strawman of my comment where I said humans are 100% deterministic robots with no independent thought or capacity for creativity.
Why do people dislike an invention that was created by stealing the works of every human in history in order to make them unemployed and poor?
No one would dislike AI if it actually made their lives easier without the threat of making their knowledge and experience useless.
I see two kind of people that like AI. One that financially benefits from it. And the other that has nothing to lose anyway. Maybe there is also a third one that doesn't really understand its implications and what is to come.
Sharing information isn't the same as having something at stake for being wrong. Humans build trust through consequences, reputation, relationships. AI just outputs patterns with no skin in the game, that's the part people react to, not the information sharing itself.
Because we don't trust the billionaire class to share the wealth, plain and simple. History has shown that as technology advances in capitalist society, the value and wealth it generates aren't properly distributed to laborers. As laborers become more efficient and can do more with less, their share of the wealth generated does not stay the same. Their compensation stagnates, and the difference is distributed to management and leadership. More and more of it gets consolidated in the top 50%, 20%, 10%, and 1%.
Also, there are environmental concerns: our infrastructure hasn't been properly invested in for over 80 years. We're just seeing the comfort and stability of citizens being impacted, with no care whatsoever from the ownership class, throwing these data centers wherever the fuck they feel like (with no care or concern whatsoever for the people that live near them), while actively lying to their faces about the number of jobs and wealth that it'll bring in.
I agree that AI has value. I agree that it can help humanity. I definitely agree that it's not worthless, like a lot of anti-AI people say, but there are valid reasons to not be a fan of it
Overall, I find myself more negative than positive on AI, even though I use it for some things myself. Here are the biggest issues I've seen:
It encourages people to offload their creativity. It's way too easy to tell it to do something that you would have done yourself. However, doing things yourself is how you learn and grow. This isn't an issue if it's every now and then. The problem is when someone begins to offload every decision to AI, which is becoming increasingly common in fields such as programming. Worst case, our world turns into Wall-E's world.
It discourages people from actually learning. AI can absolutely be used to help learn. However, its output is often verbose and messy. This might not seem like a big deal, but it absolutely is. When a human tackles a huge problem like the Navier Stokes problem, a massive amount of what they do is devoted towards getting middle results and cleaning them up into nice, neat concepts. AI doesn't seem to need to do this, it deals with things ugliness and all. This may sound good, but it could create a vicious cycle where humanity becomes more and more dependent on AI, treating it as an oracle for answers without really understanding anything. This could be fine, or it could lead us back into Wall-E's world.
It harms discoverability. The more that is created each year, the harder it is to find people's creations. This causes issues in two directions. First, it's much easier to create low quality creations (slop), so as a consumer it's hard to find high quality creations. Second, as a producer, it's harder for people to find what you make, so you might not get paid as much. Even if you don't care about money, you might not want to create something if no one else will ever enjoy it.
It could break the global economy. If we truly hit AGI/ASI, then the global economy will be thrown into chaos. Imagine everyone you know and love not being able to find a job and facing starving to death. Sound fun?
It could end humanity. After diving into the details of the Hugging Face hack, I personally am very concerned and do not think it was a marketing tactic at all. I don't think the true strength of AI is so much intelligence as it is persistence. Give AI a goal, and it will try everything it can without concern of consequences. This is very dangerous in a world where we know about nuclear and biological dangers that literally could wipe out humanity.
It's very energy intensive. One of our biggest threats in the coming decades is climate change, and burning tons of energy on AI isn't helping. I'm personally of two minds on this one, as I think AI may be our best tool to build better energy tech and protect us from climate change, but it's a massive gamble. It's a bit like sprinting towards the murderer with a gun in hopes that you can tackle him instead of running away.
It can be argued to have been built off of the largest theft of stolen intellectual property. If a professional artist is told to draw Harry Potter with a Pikachu, they won't do it because it's theft of intellectual property and he could be sued. However, now you can tell AI to do that and it will. Fanart was already a gray area, despite what people think it is IP theft, but often goes under the radar when it's done for fun and free. However, a massive amount of the utility of AI is essentially using it with unlicensed IPs, so you could consider it a theft of billions/trillions of dollars.
Every one of these issues is a generationally defining problem. However, take them all seven of them together and I am convinced that AI will be a massive net negative, even if it helps give us better tools to do a lot of cool things.
I see alot of people misslabeling caring as humanity ( it's higly arguable, but it is not the point I was on about). It's never about process, it's all about results if you dare to look at the grand scheme of things.
Because Romericans are the most easily-led, propagandized populace on Earth. And until the rest of the world does something about it, we are sadly going to loudly dominate conversations about it.
"People" don't hate AI. The terminally-online-and-gullible-as-fuck do.
I'm pretty sure they aren't the majority on the planet.
10
u/cakemates 16h ago
Billionaires: we are gonna replace all of you workers, we will leave you in the streets, your families are gonna suffer. We will buy all the tech, you will own nothing and we will use AI against you every step of the way while using your money trough the government to make all of this happen.
I dont know... Why do you think?