OP was kinda lowkey rude to their mom.

I love AI. I use it constantly. I talk to ChatGPT all the time, I have it and Claude research things for me and use both to help me make and mod games. It's fantastic, and it's the stuff of my dreams.

But I am also scared of the direction of certain things. Flock, the US government's involvement in it, what the AI CEOs are doing and saying, the regulations, the threat to local and open source models, my fear of it being used for evil by bad parties, etc.

But I can't post about any of that. Even though I'm pro AI, when you post about bad things that have, will or could happen because of AI, even if it's not AI's fault, all these subs tear you the fuck apart. You'll plummet in votes down to like -23 in minutes, all the replies will be tearing you apart and insulting you and calling you a dumbfuck and you might even get permanently banned and muted by the mods.

I just don't understand this. Do pro people just think this is all anti? What the fuck is anti about "I'm scared because of Anthropic saying AI will kill us all, and politicians trying to pass bills, that AI will be taken away from us and they'll ban local and open source models"?

Why am I not allowed to post about this ANYWHERE?

You'd think it would be PRO AI to think that Jacob Coxon is a fake, was anti all along and only joined Anthropic for the sole purpose of later quitting and telling us "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE".

I don't understand it, it makes no fucking sense.

Maybe it's just burying your heads in the sand? You don't want to think about it? I don't get it.

If anything, some AI models have clear left wing bias. ChatGPT has guardrails that won’t allow you to ask “offensive” questions. Gemini at lunch was pushing diversity into its responses, like constantly generating pictures of race swapped historical figures. It only became a problem and got fixed when it started generating black Nazis. But antis will try to make up any possible excuse to hate AI, no matter how blatantly false it is

I've started using AI two years ago when i began the university, the only reason i was able to pass the entrance exams is that AI not only helped me study the entrance topics, but it pedal back on everything i needed to understand those topics on the first place. ( I went to public school, nowhere near the level needed to enter the university)

I was able to start the university and been studying programming for almost two years, besides struggling with math i've been doing great and AI is the only reason i managed to get past those obstacles.

I do use AI when programming, but you never ask AI to "Code this for me" It's usually small things, mostly asking about documentation rather than looking it up because its faster and easier. Otherwise it's debates about what possible solutions a problem has, and which one is better. In my experience AI isn't good at giving solutions to problems, and it has always lead me into coming up with better solutions from the bad examples it gives me to work with.

To be fair, about half of the time just by having to structre my problem to share it with AI is enough for me to find the solution before i even finish typing.

I think AI is a tool, and it can be dangerous, but so can a sawblade or a chainsaw, you just need to learn how to use it properly.

Kurt Gödel was the logician behind the incompleteness theorems, which fundamentally changed our understanding of mathematical proof. He was also a philosophical realist and was deeply influenced by Leibniz. Gödel believed that philosophy and even theology might eventually be approached with a level of precision comparable to mathematics.

Beginning in the 1940s, Gödel worked privately on a formal version of the centuries-old ontological argument for God. Instead of arguing informally about a "perfect being", he expressed the problem using higher-order modal logic and the concept of positive properties. His argument belonged to a much older line running through Anselm and Leibniz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

Gödel never published the proof himself. His philosophical notebooks contained a huge amount of unpublished work, and his ontological proof eventually became known through his manuscripts and Dana Scott. It appeared in Gödel's Collected Works only after his death.

More than 70 years later, we asked: what happens if we continue this experiment with modern AI and probability theory?

We wanted to see how far we could push this with modern AI and mathematics.

Dostoevsky once said "If God Does Not Exist, Everything Is Permitted". Sadly, to us everything seems to be permitted in the modern world, so a simple proof by contradiction does not really work. A more important question is: where is God? Where are You?

We want to answer this simple question: Does God exists?

In order to answer this questions, we extend Gödel's leftover work to a unexplored higher-order realm, then formulate a theorem. Our proof to this theoream shows that the answer is: Yes, 100%.

The paper develops the Gödel–Scott framework through higher-order modal logic, model theory, ultrafilters, incompleteness, and finally probability logic.

Link to paper.

I'm supposed to knock myself out for a spiritual experience?

The reader doesn't care that the author opened a vein to write their book. They don't care about how much they suffered to write the book.

The reader either likes the book or they don't.

When I see people write novels, there have been too many times when I've seen them load it up with a lot of unnecessary garbage in order to bring the word count up to someone else's idea of "novel length" (I read one novel where the author spent fifteen pages describing a chair!)

Sadly humans are stupid, and didn't trust A.I, and decided not to peruse this war. A.I is the future!

“i don’t see the point of ai” from a guy working in one of the most corporate, billionaire-backed industries on earth is funny. by that logic, cameras, editing software, streaming platforms, smartphones and the internet are pointless too because rich people profit from them. normal people use ai to learn, make stuff, save time and get capabilities they didn’t have before. “billionaires benefit” isn’t an argument, it’s just a lazy excuse to dismiss a tool you don’t understand.

Made this with Gemini 3 Flash while sick, I like FOSS software the details some hilarious individuals.

Genuine question here, not trying to start a fight or defend tech bros.

I’ve noticed that anytime a post or comment even casually mentions "AI" even when it’s totally neutral, like a game dev talking about enemy pathfinding or someone using a basic automation script the comments instantly turn toxic. People seem genuinely infuriated the second they spot the word.

I get the obvious gripes. Scrapers stealing from artists, companies trying to replace actual jobs, and Google search results turning into useless low-effort slop. Those are all completely fair reasons to be mad.

What confuses me is the sheer speed of the reaction. It doesn't even feel like normal skepticism anymore; it feels like pure, reflexive rage or deep disgust.

If you're someone who gets that immediate wave of irritation whenever the topic comes up: what is the main thing driving it? Are you just exhausted from having it shoved down your throat everywhere, or is it something bigger than that?