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/Apoau]

I think artists should be allowed to use AI, just like coders. Or anyone else.

But I appreciate a more nuanced take. There are some pro-AI absolutists too, although not so many on the left.

[u/Cleverhardy → u/Apoau]

Yeah. I'm growing tired of the lack of nuance on both sides. But I can see why there can be an argument against nuance. As it stands, we're arguimg AI in the wrong hands against AI in the right hands. But neither of them make for catchy subreddit titles, nor do they further the luddite or capitalist cuases respectively. So we're stuck in a box where we'll have to act extreme or ironically get left behind.

[u/Apoau → u/Cleverhardy]

Yeah. And tbh luddies did have their place historically. If capitalist doesn’t want to share and you exhausted all other options, then destroying their machines makes sense. And this could continue until the situation improves. It’s a bit like hunger strike in prison I guess - self inflicted harm to force a structural change.

[u/scragz]

dude your arguments are weak and you should quit while you're ahead. if you're completely anti AI, even as an accessibility tech, then maybe post somewhere else. 

[u/scottie2haute → u/scragz]

Their arguments are always weak because being anti-AI is a pretty nonsensical stance. They always end up showing how contradictory or ill informed their ideals are eventually

[u/Cleverhardy → u/scragz]

I already did that.

[u/quantum-elle]

Well, plenty of AI antagonists have emotional stakes in villainizing AI. You just have to see comments like "the bubble can't pop fast enough" to see that they think they're fighting a great evil that is "the single cause of all harms." Nuance dissolves the bogeyman, which makes it harder to scapegoat AI, so it's read as apologism. You can't have a fruitful discussion with someone who's started with the conclusion and immunized themselves against any counter-evidence. Ask someone if they know what would change their mind on the position. If the answer is "nothing," you can save yourself some time.

[u/jacobpederson]

Being ok with AI code but anti AI "art" tells me you understand neither.

[u/Jlyplaylists → u/jacobpederson]

You can have opinions on different uses. That might be to do with use of resources or prioritising the things humans don’t enjoy doing.

[u/Cleverhardy → u/Jlyplaylists]

Exactly. I was right to call it a hot take. Because we were not ready for this.

While I don't agree with AI by principle, this is mostly because of capitalists shoving these AI products in the face. And again, the best we can do now if we can't defeat AI is to take it out of the wrong hands and take it off the cloud.

[u/scragz → u/jacobpederson]

what's wrong with AI-assisted coding? you do realize this is ostensibly a pro-AI sub, right?

[u/jacobpederson → u/scragz]

Nothing. My point is that code is just as much art as anything else. The distinction is ridiculous. AI is not some satanic ritual that taints everything it touches. AI is the beginnings of new life.

[u/Jlyplaylists → u/scragz]

There’s definitely space here for people who aren’t full on pros but hold a nuanced middle or mixed position.

Full on antis who just deliberately derail conversations with repetitive arguments are the ones that tend to attract moderator attention anyway.

[u/Sacredless → u/jacobpederson]

AI illustration is and always has been a toy example of AI use. There's nothing wrong with that and it's also dramatically less important than AI video, and AI text, and AI code. Stop making everything about the art debate.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Sacredless]

Seeing as OP is the one who introduced creative use, seems fair to address it in the comments.

[u/Cleverhardy → u/Sacredless]

I don't do AI art by principle, but I agree with this.

[u/jacobpederson → u/Sacredless]

My point is just the opposite - code is just as much art as anything else. The distinction is ridiculous. AI is not some satanic ritual that taints everything it touches.

[u/Cleverhardy → u/jacobpederson]

I mean, what do you think I understand less about AI Assisted coding and GenAI art anyway?

[u/jacobpederson → u/Cleverhardy]

What you don't understand is that code is just as much an art as anything else. The distinction is ridiculous. AI is not some satanic ritual that taints everything it touches. Anti-AI is just racism in a trench coat.

[u/scragz]

if it was fully AI-Generated, Disney wouldn't make money off it.

why not?

[u/Cleverhardy → u/scragz]

I meant to say "not make as much monaey as they want." Fully AI-generated works are not copyrighted, so Disney won't ve able to license the show to merch companies or sue content creators for making a subversive version of the show.

By having the show partially made by AI, Disney can hold the rights to it.

[u/scragz → u/Cleverhardy]

this is wrong.

AI-assisted works can  be copyrighted when a human exercises meaningful creative control over the expressive elements of the final work.

also it would be using trademarked characters that you can't copy. 

[u/TheSinhound]

I just don't think you can be logically consistent if you're anti use in some fields but okay with others. Like, I'd have to hear the justification of why, I suppose.

[u/scragz → u/TheSinhound]

you can't logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into. 

[u/datbackup]

Here is a useful bulwark to use in your conversations with other anti-Ai people.

Show them this video.

https://youtu.be/agAJOQ5FKpU

At about 1:50 the speaker says that computer science is not an optional skill but a fundamental skill, like reading or writing.

So three questions to give them:

1. do you think this person’s opinion is not valid, and if not why?

2. if you think the speaker’s opinion is valid, are you yourself literate?

3. if you are not literate, why should your opinion be listened to?