I am not calling you, personally, hysterical. I am referring to the groups that broadly rally against AI, even exclusively generative, as hysterics due to the extreme emotions associated with the technology. Their arguments are closely aligned with your own and are constantly riddled with contradictions and assertions that have little basis if any. Yes I see you’ve hotlinked many articles, unfortunately opinion pieces such as and others don’t interest me because they too are full of appeals to emotion to invoke fear and panic.
Well I am one of the people rallying against generative AI. I don’t see myself as hysterical as I am opposing the negative effects of generative AI.
And news stories highlighting the negative effects of AI are “opinion peices” now?
I would love to hear more of the contradictions from us anti AI people as the one you gave is not a contradiction.
I’m positive you can grasp how giving everyone the ability to readily generate media can be a benefit.
No I cannot. Please elaborate as to why allowing people to generate slop is a good thing?
Slop is mass produced, meaningless content. AI getting better will not change that.
Respectfully, unless you directly work with AI or have the credentials/sources to support that opinion, I can’t take your word for it. Something other than “Why ChatGPT is dogshit” articles would be appreciated. I’m trying desperately to use the sources you’ve given me but wading through articles of emotionally charged individuals is exhausting.
Sources such as https://aaai.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AAAI-2025-PresPanel-Report-Digital-3.7.25.pdf (Page 44) I widely agree with because it identifies the bad uses of AI, calls for unified effort for regulatory safeguards to be put in place, and at no point attempts to discredit its usefulness or demean the technology as a whole. Your own source is opining the benefits of artificial general intelligence.
“Architectures Beyond Transformers: The standard transformer architecture has demonstrated remarkable capabilities, but it has fundamental limitations, such as fixed context windows, lack of explicit memory, inability to learn and react to real-time feedback from environments, and inefficiency and challenges in complex reasoning tasks”
Pg61
And they specifically say that new models of AI must be developed. The reason I said that is because AGI is an entirely different conversation than the one we are having now.
Art can be a form of communication but to say that it is only a form of communication and the prospect of a ‘creatorless’ piece of art, devoid of purposeful intent is somehow worth less or even meaningless I believe it more a personal testament than anything. I enjoy art because it allows me to introspect. To allow the thoughts which control my inner monologue to fall away so that everything left can simply ponder. A blank canvas with exclusively white paint used, titled “Hare in a Snowstorm” can easily be mocked as having no effort or even joked about but personally it was the first time I was absolutely captivated by a piece of art. (Yes, a fictional piece of work in DareDevil was the first time I ‘understood’ what art means to me.)
So… you use a film as an example for your point?
“Becoming an effective filmmaker involves being deliberately mindful of the structures and conventions that allow film to communicate meaning to a global audience. The Language of Film explores complex topics such as semiotics, narrative, intertextuality, ideology and the aesthetics of film in a clear and straightforward style, enabling you to apply these ideas and techniques to your own analysis or film-making. With full-colour film stills, in-depth case studies and a wide range of practical exercises, The Language of Film will help you to make the transition from consumer to practitioner - from someone who just responds to the language of film, to someone who actively uses it.”
Do you really think that the filmakers put no thought about the message that piece of art portrayed? That they did not think about how its framing would get people to think and introspect? Almost like the filmakers were trying to say something.
Individually, the cost of generating an image seems to be hard to find. All I can find with the articles you’ve linked is that at scale AI is expensive which yes, I agree. Nearly millions of images being generated and deleted at scale is expensive but if we’re not footing the bill, who is? Like with Uber, Uber and their investors are. Using the technology is costing rich people with money…
Why do you think that people with money are financing AI?
Also the articles I linked talked about how OpenAI is losing money on a $200 a month plan. Meaning it costs more than $200 a month to service a single AI user that uses it at a high level.
and I’m struggling to find the moral ramifications.
So artist’s work being used on mass without their permission has zero ethical ramifications?
How are the people who use generative AI being targeted for rich companies buying up property and using it to support AI when nothing was stopping said companies from doing this prior to the ‘AI boom’?
What are you trying to say here?
Tell me then, why don’t we blame Google gift cards for scamming the elderly? Why are international scammers taking the heat when the technology of gift cards is being abused so that Google and others like them can make money off tech support scams? Or what about getting mad at cash transferring apps like Cash App or PayPal for allowing free money to transfer between drug dealers and their clients? Why does that sound absurd but villainizing AI as a whole for internet con artists seem entirely fine?
I didn’t know the google was actively promoting gift card scams, or that cash transfer apps were promoting drug dealing.
The most coherent way I can argue why AI generation should exist is that artists, game developers, and similar creators are already being worked under inhumane conditions. Put to work with a “metaphorical” gun to their head. Why should AI generation not be used to reduce workload? Why should this technology be scrapped entirely when it’s already shown it can produce a battery of simple content that can be expanded on by a more skilled hand?
It’s frustrating to me because the arguments always seem to water down to another Luddite movement. Would it be less hurtful to be called an “AI Luddite” I wonder?
Well I am one of the people rallying against generative AI. I don’t see myself as hysterical as I am opposing the negative effects of generative AI.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say you only oppose the negative effects of generative AI while undermining it entirely. You aren’t “opposing the negative effects of generative AI.” you are opposing generative AI at the least and from what I can tell, AI in general.
And news stories highlighting the negative effects of AI are “opinion peices” now?
Do you genuinely not understand the difference between an article reporting news and a bias hit-piece serving to prop up your pre-existing beliefs while ignoring any evidence to the contrary? These articles are no more news than Mein Kampf is an expert account of WWII and it’s extraordinarily bad faith to pretend otherwise.
I would love to hear more of the contradictions from us anti AI people as the one you gave is not a contradiction.
Pulling from the bottom of the last responses, you seem to like the idea of being a luddite yet enjoy and prosper from their failure. The device you use for instance, the clothes you wear, the food you eat. It’s interesting that even with that hindsight you’ll allow the fear of short term job loss to effectively kill technologies that can be used to advance oneself exponentially.
And they specifically say that new models of AI must be developed. The reason I said that is because AGI is an entirely different conversation than the one we are having now.
"such as fixed context windows, lack of explicit memory, inability to learn and react to real-time feedback from environments, and inefficiency and challenges in complex reasoning tasks”
This is the contradiction I spoke of. Where you can seemingly rally against the destruction or at least heavy scaling back of “generative AI” (or even all of AI) yet when presented with the chance by seemingly ethically acting individuals to ‘reboot’ the architecture to be stronger, faster, and capable of so much more than data scraping you… support it wholeheartedly? You want “new models” of AI yet how will you better control it against the perceived negatives you’ve stated you’re against? Even now with ethical guardrails being put in after the fact, people have found ways around it and continue to do so in order to make AI do what it specifically was told not to do. It sounds akin to a peace activist voicing their excitement over bigger bombs with larger ranges.
So… you use a film as an example for your point? Do you really think that the filmakers put no thought about the message that piece of art portrayed? That they did not think about how its framing would get people to think and introspect? Almost like the filmakers were trying to say something.
I used a Television Series to explain that art does not need to communicate in order to be meaningful to oneself. That I don’t need to know who made it, why they made it, or even the title of the work to examine how it makes me feel. Which, yes, to the contrary of my point the show makes clear through other dialog. The show helped unlock how I view art as a whole but the art itself, the painting, did not communicate that. The art is not responsible for communicating to me what I feel about a work, if it was, we’d all come away with the same conclusion.
Why do you think that people with money are financing AI? Also the articles I linked talked about how OpenAI is losing money on a $200 a month plan. Meaning it costs more than $200 a month to service a single AI user that uses it at a high level.
Was that not the point you made when you referred to Uber being propped up in the same way? Why be concerned on the expenses of a company you are not investing in or is being subsidized by the government? If you’re concerned about the environmental impact in terms of water usage, you have my complete support in regulation which would limit their usage. However, that’s not what you’re saying, is it? Who is paying the “$200 a month” and why should you or I care?
I didn’t know the google was actively promoting gift card scams, or that cash transfer apps were promoting drug dealing.
Is it your assertion then that the creators of OpenAI are actively encouraging people use their services for illegal or unethical activities?
So artist’s work being used on mass without their permission has zero ethical ramifications?
What’s unethical about it? We already have laws which state if you use creative works that aren’t sufficiently altered, you cannot be allowed to profit off them or claim credit for said works. We have, since the dawn of DMCA, had the ability to take a work, modify it “enough” and sell it within legal and ethical frameworks. There are robust creative protections with songs to where if you record yourself singing Firework by Katy Perry, you can sell that recording and not send a dime to her. Why? Because your voice and instruments are different enough that all the other similarities don’t matter - you can profit off that work.
Now, I heavily disagree with about 80% of the DMCA and believe it’s woefully outdated but no, if you put out work publicly and it’s used in a data set I don’t think legally or ethically you need to be compensated however I would more readily support AI architecture that does pay for their training sets especially on work that isn’t lingering on the open web. It might make you and I both feel a little violated knowing millions of data scraping scripts exist designed to take and repurpose every kilobyte of content on the internet, but it’s neither illegal nor unethical.
Fuck I love extreme left propaganda. The extreme right makes idiots feel like a hardened warrior, surrounded on all sides, but you have the strength to persist while extreme left shit just makes otherwise educated individuals feel stupid and afraid. How dare you not realize all these threats around you, are you dumb? You support something I don’t, have you considered it could be turned into the most oppressive, worldwide threat of our time?
If you have a point to make, using the propaganda that makes you feel good is typically the worst way to convey that point to anyone who doesn’t already agree. It’s circlejerk material you should safe for your buddies, not evidence or a convincing point.
Well I am one of the people rallying against generative AI. I don’t see myself as hysterical as I am opposing the negative effects of generative AI.
And news stories highlighting the negative effects of AI are “opinion peices” now?
I would love to hear more of the contradictions from us anti AI people as the one you gave is not a contradiction.
No I cannot. Please elaborate as to why allowing people to generate slop is a good thing?
Slop is mass produced, meaningless content. AI getting better will not change that.
So a published research article is not adequate?
https://officechai.com/stories/ai-models-seem-to-be-hitting-a-ceiling-of-capabilities-marc-andreessen/
https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/confirmed-llms-have-indeed-reached
“Architectures Beyond Transformers: The standard transformer architecture has demonstrated remarkable capabilities, but it has fundamental limitations, such as fixed context windows, lack of explicit memory, inability to learn and react to real-time feedback from environments, and inefficiency and challenges in complex reasoning tasks”
Pg61
And they specifically say that new models of AI must be developed. The reason I said that is because AGI is an entirely different conversation than the one we are having now.
So… you use a film as an example for your point?
“Becoming an effective filmmaker involves being deliberately mindful of the structures and conventions that allow film to communicate meaning to a global audience. The Language of Film explores complex topics such as semiotics, narrative, intertextuality, ideology and the aesthetics of film in a clear and straightforward style, enabling you to apply these ideas and techniques to your own analysis or film-making. With full-colour film stills, in-depth case studies and a wide range of practical exercises, The Language of Film will help you to make the transition from consumer to practitioner - from someone who just responds to the language of film, to someone who actively uses it.”
https://archive.org/details/languageoffilm0000edga_p7q9_2ed
Do you really think that the filmakers put no thought about the message that piece of art portrayed? That they did not think about how its framing would get people to think and introspect? Almost like the filmakers were trying to say something.
Why do you think that people with money are financing AI?
Also the articles I linked talked about how OpenAI is losing money on a $200 a month plan. Meaning it costs more than $200 a month to service a single AI user that uses it at a high level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
https://expertbeacon.com/why-is-uber-so-expensive/
So artist’s work being used on mass without their permission has zero ethical ramifications?
What are you trying to say here?
I didn’t know the google was actively promoting gift card scams, or that cash transfer apps were promoting drug dealing.
https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/9057338?hl=en
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2025/03/government-strengthens-canadas-anti-money-laundering-framework-with-new-regulatory-amendments.html
https://aftermath.site/ai-video-game-development-art-vibe-coding-midjourney
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/lee_2025_ai_critical_thinking_survey.pdf
https://thenib.com/im-a-luddite/
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say you only oppose the negative effects of generative AI while undermining it entirely. You aren’t “opposing the negative effects of generative AI.” you are opposing generative AI at the least and from what I can tell, AI in general.
Do you genuinely not understand the difference between an article reporting news and a bias hit-piece serving to prop up your pre-existing beliefs while ignoring any evidence to the contrary? These articles are no more news than Mein Kampf is an expert account of WWII and it’s extraordinarily bad faith to pretend otherwise.
Pulling from the bottom of the last responses, you seem to like the idea of being a luddite yet enjoy and prosper from their failure. The device you use for instance, the clothes you wear, the food you eat. It’s interesting that even with that hindsight you’ll allow the fear of short term job loss to effectively kill technologies that can be used to advance oneself exponentially.
"such as fixed context windows, lack of explicit memory, inability to learn and react to real-time feedback from environments, and inefficiency and challenges in complex reasoning tasks”
This is the contradiction I spoke of. Where you can seemingly rally against the destruction or at least heavy scaling back of “generative AI” (or even all of AI) yet when presented with the chance by seemingly ethically acting individuals to ‘reboot’ the architecture to be stronger, faster, and capable of so much more than data scraping you… support it wholeheartedly? You want “new models” of AI yet how will you better control it against the perceived negatives you’ve stated you’re against? Even now with ethical guardrails being put in after the fact, people have found ways around it and continue to do so in order to make AI do what it specifically was told not to do. It sounds akin to a peace activist voicing their excitement over bigger bombs with larger ranges.
I used a Television Series to explain that art does not need to communicate in order to be meaningful to oneself. That I don’t need to know who made it, why they made it, or even the title of the work to examine how it makes me feel. Which, yes, to the contrary of my point the show makes clear through other dialog. The show helped unlock how I view art as a whole but the art itself, the painting, did not communicate that. The art is not responsible for communicating to me what I feel about a work, if it was, we’d all come away with the same conclusion.
Was that not the point you made when you referred to Uber being propped up in the same way? Why be concerned on the expenses of a company you are not investing in or is being subsidized by the government? If you’re concerned about the environmental impact in terms of water usage, you have my complete support in regulation which would limit their usage. However, that’s not what you’re saying, is it? Who is paying the “$200 a month” and why should you or I care?
Is it your assertion then that the creators of OpenAI are actively encouraging people use their services for illegal or unethical activities?
What’s unethical about it? We already have laws which state if you use creative works that aren’t sufficiently altered, you cannot be allowed to profit off them or claim credit for said works. We have, since the dawn of DMCA, had the ability to take a work, modify it “enough” and sell it within legal and ethical frameworks. There are robust creative protections with songs to where if you record yourself singing Firework by Katy Perry, you can sell that recording and not send a dime to her. Why? Because your voice and instruments are different enough that all the other similarities don’t matter - you can profit off that work.
Now, I heavily disagree with about 80% of the DMCA and believe it’s woefully outdated but no, if you put out work publicly and it’s used in a data set I don’t think legally or ethically you need to be compensated however I would more readily support AI architecture that does pay for their training sets especially on work that isn’t lingering on the open web. It might make you and I both feel a little violated knowing millions of data scraping scripts exist designed to take and repurpose every kilobyte of content on the internet, but it’s neither illegal nor unethical.
Fuck I love extreme left propaganda. The extreme right makes idiots feel like a hardened warrior, surrounded on all sides, but you have the strength to persist while extreme left shit just makes otherwise educated individuals feel stupid and afraid. How dare you not realize all these threats around you, are you dumb? You support something I don’t, have you considered it could be turned into the most oppressive, worldwide threat of our time?
If you have a point to make, using the propaganda that makes you feel good is typically the worst way to convey that point to anyone who doesn’t already agree. It’s circlejerk material you should safe for your buddies, not evidence or a convincing point.
Well your response makes it clear that it is a waste of time to continue this conversation. Thank you for the debate.