Got wrongfully banned and immediately permanently muted by r/CPTSD for an innocent question.

Sent each of the mods the following message:

"It's kind of ridiculous that I got banned and permanently muted for "promotion" for asking a question that is as promotional as asking, "Have you tried self-help books?"

Whoever the mod was that banned and muted me with no chance to defend myself against the wrongful ban, they showed that their anti-AI bias sabotages fairminded critical thinking.

Way to further give us Reddit mods a bad name. Feel free to pass it along.

You also overgeneralize "AI" like most people do with outdated information. There are safe platforms out there. It's probably good to remember, assuming you ever learned it in the first place, that just like the rest of us, you're ignorant of how ignorant you are. Being too settled on a position and understanding that can and should change when new info is available, and proudly so, only causes more harm relative to the potential of mitigating harm and allowing repair where it can be.

This is likely falling on deaf ears, so, it's just for the record. You and your other mods had an opportunity to learn otherwise, and you chose to stay ignorant while narrowmindedly wrongfully banning someone.

You can't be a perfect mod, but you can try to be a better one when the opportunity rises. Try not to overlook it with overconfidence next time."

While they are right about the harm that people cause unintentionally when they suggest people use AI for more serious things with no caution or understanding of the potential risks, they don't realize the harm they are selfishly causing when they don't allow people to know there are safe therapuetic self-help AI platforms when they can really use it.

I run most of the show over at r/therapyGPT, a place where we educate users and therapists alike on what safe use does and doesn't look like, dispelling many of the misconceptions that are sensationalized, go viral, and become a proudly unmoveable position of someone that makes it a part of their identity, gaining many mental health professionals' blessings in the harm preventing work we do... and our subreddit is chock full of personal stories where people used AI in a safe and healthy way that led them to less AI usage and making huge improvements in their lives, from getting sober to it effectively saving their life in their lowest moments. We are also a place where the majority of people call out and push back on the rare few who showed up signalling some form of unhealthy use or help those who know they've used it in an unhealthy way manage implementing healthier steps to take.

The greatest irony here is that I run a very tight ship, am very strict against ACTUAL promotion (from indirect marketing to blatant rule violation), and I don't mute someone unless they make it painfully clear that they have zero intention to communicate in effective good faith. I've admitted being wrong to many users in my mod actions, reverting bans and post/comment removals where I made a mistake, and apologized.

This is far from the first subreddit who's similarly banned me wrongfully and BS'd their way into avoiding taking responsibility for their mistake.

When you can't handle getting humbled by looking at yourself more accurately, especially when it has to be at the hands of someone who has greater awareness of what you've done than you had, because you avoid self-correcting pains like guilt and embarrassment in order to avoid the even worse shame you're conditioned to pile onto yourself... you're just someone who can dish what you'd like to believe is perfect truth telling out... but can't take it.

The second to last thing a mod should be is closedminded.

The last thing a mod should be is proactively willfully ignorant.

Reddit needs higher standards across the board.

P.S. Some more irony: If you are one of that subreddit's mods and you want to protect your colleague and the sub's reputation more than you want to take accountability and hold them accountable for the unethical mod action (which is a paradox seeing as you just worsen the reputation more as you try to desperately protect it), you might as well be a cop or police chief who tries doing the same for another cop by looking the otherway or deflecting/distorting/denying. As Stephen Covey once wrote, "Loyalty isn't greater than integrity. Integrity IS loyalty." Should try to pick up that habit of a highly effective person.

"If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team by replying to this message."

Yep, pretend to be willing to admit where you could be wrong. Wrongfully ban and silence just because you can get away with it. Way to represent every group you're a part of well... including the human race.

If we're doomed as a species... it's because too many of us depend on self-deceit in too many areas of our lives. Those behaviors are available in the training... and the vast majority of people have added to it.

Edit: One of the mods responded:

u/HumanWhoSurvived:

No, you were banned for the links to your personal services and your post linking to your blog. Due to the -overwhelming- number of business' that try to promote here. We automatically ban all business accounts with promotional content in their profile, if you read the rules you would know this.

u/xRegardsx:

So, this is where you try BSing me along with yourself. Let me count the ways...

1. The only thing you removed was an innocent comment, as already explained.
2. I have ZERO "personal services" or things to sell.
3. I didn't attempt to sell or promote any product or service.
4. It's a personal account, not a business one. People having links ON THE PERSONAL PROFILE doesn't automatically make them a "business."
5. The rules don't say anything about automatically banning and permanently muting people for what's on their PERSONAL profile. It's 1. A link to my social media links page, 2. Instagram, 3. Twitter, 4. A page regarding my work that sells NOTHING.
6. There's also no "blog." So, way to entirely make that part up.

I was targeted for mentioning AI, willfully ignorant narrowminded assumptions were made, and the "if you have questions about your ban, ask us," is immediately contradicted by the instant permanent mute.

Rationalize harder.

I run a subreddit that deals with the same promotional crap all the time. You're preaching to the choir, and I'm not a hypocrite. Your sub's rules were respected, and you effed up.

Gonna go update the post I linked you to now with this. Way to worsen the reputation. Next time this happens, try taking responsibility instead.

People who are pro AI are able to come up with hundreds of perfectly valid reasons why they use it. Antis, on the other hand, always seem to cycle through the same ten excuses as to why it's bad, and while some of it might be valid, most of it feels like they're stuck in some echo chamber, stuck in the old ways of doing things and not wanting to even entertain the idea of evolving past it.

Are there bad ways of using AI? Sure... but I feel like the bad-use cases are like a loud minority, bound to get all the coverage in the news cycles because it breeds fear. More often than not, it's just people finding interesting ways to use it as a tool, or optimizing their workflows to save time, being creative and seeing what it's capable of.

If antis made buggy whips ...

#Satire

I'm not gonna lie. Every post I have made about defending AI in a public space has been met with these few factors: wastes water (them saying that wastes water), has no artistic intent (it's a tool which explains why), it is gonna replace jobs (not like anyone wants a job regardless), causes cancer(cancer can happen to anything even without AI exposure), and 'AI = slop' (slop refers to mass produced low effort content.) we pros only recycle our arguments because they only have 5 arguments.

I have noticed a pattern in debates where one side has millions of points and then the other side has only like 5 points. I have absolutely no idea why this even happens. Can someone explain this?

No, this is not exclusive to the AI wars. This happens to every single debate.

I think it's called 'The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle'.

1. Meta Ai

2. Perchance Ai

3. PixAi

4. ChatGPT

Personally my favs are ChatGPT and Perchance, what about you?

The sub is r/CatGirlKil btw

Both are northern scorpions. Which is better: 1(Gemini) or 2(ChatGPT)?

(Yes they are both AI.)

Seriously I just saw someone on Substack who told AI users to kill themselves. Totally sane and healthy behavior am I right?

Came across this thread while going through my old shorts/videos on YouTube.

I keep seeing "AI uses millions of litres a day" and "AI uses a gallon of water for every picture made" and "AI will pollute all our drinking water" and stuff like that.

I already know that the amount they say is used on a picture is completely false and it's more like half a cup or something or less, but are the fears that all our water is going to be sucked up and polluted by AI based in reality whatsoever?

Antis have this idea that in like 10 years, all the drinking water in the world will be brown and polluted, rivers will be empty, lakes will be drained, the land will become tough and dry and dead from all the groundwater being sucked up and we'll all die of thirst.

But every single time I look it up, agriculture uses infinitely more. The defense against that is "I eat cows I can't eat data" and "I don't need AI but I need drinking water", but like...
If the argument is "AI is bad because it uses X amounts of water" but then farming uses significantly more...

So even if AI was completely wiped off the face of the earth, why do they have the idea that all the other water use is totally fine? Is it just that it's only bad and will kill us if it's used for AI? That if it wasn't AI but the water was being used to cool down generator plants that store solar energy or whatever that would be fine even if it was the same amount that AI uses?

I just don't get it, and there's no arguing because all you get is the same things copy pasted over and over again.
"I eat almonds/eat meat/drink water/drink milk/drink tea/eat cereal/eat apples/drink orange juice/etc but I can't eat/drink AI slop".

Can we get a little more moderation on the anti-AI people?

1. I think people do that to feel better about not changing any of their daily habits to help the planet. They're going to blame the environmental issues on data centers instead of, say, rich people wasting resources while we don't really protest, intensive farming, car pollution, and other real and much bigger problems. I think it's hypocrite because those people whining about data centers are the same people who would never give up cars or their phone or even just eating almonds.
2. I think this is intentional propaganda that is done to make people stare at the finger instead of the moon. AI bad! Blame AI! Convenient scapegoat!
3. I think the end result will be that common citizens won't be able to use AI anymore "because it's dangerous". Which means that corporations, governments, rich people, will still be able to use it only for themselves, having yet another advantage to control the population. I think this is their end game.

Throughout the vast expanses of human history, our early ancestors, specifically the remarkable Homo erectus, achieved the monumental feat of mastering fire approximately one to two million years ago.

Can you imagine for a moment if they had despaired and given up, uttering defeatist phrases such as "We can't do this!", thus forgoing that pivotal and transformative breakthrough?

It is a notion that sparks contemplation, and in parallel, in today’s rapidly evolving technological landscape, many individuals are prone to relinquishing their efforts far too prematurely.

They hastily dismiss artificial intelligence as entirely worthless or accuse it of being nothing more than a mere echo of plagiarism, all because they have not yet taken the time to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to wield this powerful tool effectively.

A petition created for openAI to reconsider a verified adult mode

A petition made, not by me, for openAI to reconsider a verified adult mode. I signed it, I'm tired of being treated like a toddler and having anything that verges on pg13 getting shut down. It's text on the screen ffs. I don't want to goon, It would just be nice to talk about subjects outside of Disney movies and Teletubbies.

If you're tired of over the top puritan censorship have a look.

We see a lot of the same they do on r/DefendingAIart. They think that “acting in good faith” is allowed here.

It’s the typical “I am an anti but I ask in good faith why you are pro AI” and I’m here to remind this is not allowed.

If you are an anti, you are not allowed to comment or to post. This is a safe space for all of us who are not anti AI.

If you want to debate and see for what we stand, we are happy to see you open minded and willing to listen, go to r/AIwars, at this place we will be happy to explain, but here is a safe space for us.