They will also delete any comments that complain about AI at all, even though there is no rule against it.
/–edit–/
After second look, that’s not entirely true, but they definitely have a trigger finger for it and leave plenty of other “off-topic” comments.
Considering the amount of posts deleted, it should have just been locked instead of nuking comments with a negative view of AI
Here’s the thread in the screenshot:
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/43426671/18476015
Also, here you can see other’s seem to think this was an attempt to silence dissent (though, I don’t think that this coming from drag is a great point for it):
https://lemmy.ca/post/43313594
/–/
Just look at this completely insane comment from an instance admin:
This may be a mistake. But I’m going to make an attempt at good faith discussion.
I am 1000% anti bougie AI. And would be a proud Luddite, marching into the data centers with a hammer to smash the servers and power distribution. AI used to displace, exclude, or oppress people. Or AI that is a detriment to the environment. That is the problem.
Or is it this community stance that all AI regardless of what it is or what it does is somehow bad. Say if you could run your own natural language AI assistant efficiently on a piece of hardware that you own. To help you stay organized or assist with simple verbal tasks. Is that also bad? Because otherwise everything @Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com said seems pretty reasonable.
That is like saying that DDT can be used to exterminate malaria-carrying mosquitoes, therefore it should be unregulated and widely accessible and anyone saying otherwise is a ratlicker.
Not at all. Again I literally said I would happily go Luddite on the data centers of the bougie wealthy that would use a tool like artificial intelligence to harm or oppress people and the environment. That’s literally a form of Regulation against the negative impacts. If a tool can exist without the negative impacts. Then where is the problem?
If.
The problem (at least one of the problems) is the assumption that such an AI tool can exist without negative impacts. I am convinced that it can’t, because I’m witnessing the negative impacts in real time as the intelligence and competence of students at the university I work at declines year over year, to the point where some of them can’t even take a multiple choice test or write a dozen lines of code without the assistance of a chatbot.
Can AI tools have massively positive impacts? Absolutely. So can nuclear power, and we’ve done a remarkable job (so far) of not foisting a ton of refined plutonium upon whichever trust fund baby techbro grifter promises to save the world if they are given a billion dollars to build a death star.
Ethical AI cannot exist in this world, and the world where it can is a fantasy.
I should clarify: I am 100% in favor of nuclear energy and technology, and part of the reason is that the modern nuclear industry is so heavily regulated and safety-conscious. If it presented the same callous attitude as AI techbros and corporations, my views would shift immediately.
People cannot exist without negative impact. Therefore by that logic we shouldn’t exist. I don’t think you or I would agree with that though.
There are groups literally training machine learning models currently on material with consent. How is that unethical? Models intend to provide to everyone democratizing access. How is that unethical? If I was going to draw out a storyboard for an animation that I plan to make myself. If I decided instead to use this ethically created and trained model to generate storyboard visualizations. How is that unethical? These are serious questions not rhetorical.
And just to make myself well clear. Fuck google, fuck microsoft, fuck apple, fuck musk, fuck zuck, fuck Altman, and of course fuck every smarmy grifting little Tech bro.
@Eldritch More than one way to be a luddite https://sightlessscribbles.com/posts/6593/
Not in the historical sense. When I use it, I mean it in the sense of the actual luddites. Who are not against automation, machine, or the automated looms they smashed. They were against the wealthy using tools to steal their livelihood from them and cut them out. In that sense this modern day machine learning stuff is exactly analogous. And that is the reference from which my usage should be understood.
The meaning of things absolutely can change over time with culture. And indeed the wealthy have tried to redefine and portray the luddites as simply being anti-technology and not anti-wealthy. Which they were not
Also know. My acceptance of machine learning/ai is not an Embrace of or defense of tech bros crypto bros or any other sort of bros. If it’s not clear already I think those people should not exist and my general position in response to them while it may be reactionary is a solid fuck the AI bros. Fuck they’re unethical harvesting and trying to use it against us. They 100% are problematic and should not be a part of this equation. We as a society should never have left such a class of people exist in the first place.
Here’s my response to their points:
Personally, I can see some use for AI in very specific cases, and it still needs to be babied and the result double checked. But yeah, AI being mostly controlled by big corporations is a major part of the AI problem.
The first point i s a fact not an opinion. Example. I am an anarchist, and that makes you what? It makes you nothing. You are you and who or what I decide to be shouldn’t and generally doesn’t directly impact that. Now let’s say you had a bad experience with an anarchist. And as a result you have chosen to be anti anarchist. That is a reaction, and by definition reactionary. That’s all it really means. Nothing nefarious Etc.
Point two. I absolutely see it from a leftist point of view. But yes that’s not going to hold true for everyone even if I wish it did.
With point three. And most of the rest. I think they were trying to express their understanding and seek clarification on your part much as I have. What IS anti AI. Is it purely reactionary and without thought. Or is it more considered, focused on the dangers posed by authoritarians and fascists empowered by those tools. I’m leaning towards thinking its generally the latter. However it seems one or both of you might be talking passed the other. I doubt you disagree as much as you think you might.
Your argument is that having an opinion on something is by definition reactionary? That makes no sense.
You’re reading the entire discussion wrong. My entire point is that they are actually calling people who show literally any dislike in AI a “right wing neoliberal”, and that is just flat-out wrong.
I’m not talking past anyone. I was trying to discuss that point in particular and no one wanted to explain the logic behind it. (Which makes sense considering it’s an insane take in the first place.)
There is no universe where I would even come close to agreeing with that completely mental attitude.
No not in an overtly negative sense. I think all of us are reactionary to an extent and that it’s inescapable. Myself for instance despite being a lefty. I am very anti-authoritarian. As such anti-leninist. I have a very negative reaction anytime I’m around anyone who would identify themselves in terms of leninism or adjacency. It’s well justified.
Now say for instance anyone posting from a .ml domain. If I just automatically down voted them on sight without considering their arguments Etc that is very negative reactionarily. Because the ml domain servers were some of the first ones. Many people who do not share that ideology ended up on those servers. Therefore I cannot assume that they all espouse that ideology.
Think of it in terms of poison versus allergy. Your body’s reaction to a poison is often very Justified because of the life-threatening nature. Even though it is a reaction. Your body’s reaction to an allergy however is extremely different. The allergy is generally to something that ultimately would be benign to you. But your body sort of freaks out if that makes sense.
And I don’t deny that I could be reading it wrong. Because I haven’t really read the whole thing. I’ve just seen your side and the image snippet of what they posted. Not the whole conversation. But I do know how easy it is for people to talk past each other. Become offended and then reactionarily recalcitrant.
No. To put it very simply, having an opinion about something is not reactionary. It seems you are distilling down the concept of “reactionary” too much, and by that definition any human interaction is “reactionary” which makes it lose any meaning and then becomes a useless term.
You really don’t need to see any more than what’s provided to see how clear it is that I’m not talking past anyone, considering how insane the take is from the start.
But, here’s an overview:
It may be my ASD, perhaps I didn’t explain clearly. Let’s try an absurdist example. I have a thing here. I will not tell you it’s name or describe it to you. What is your opinion of this “thing”? Is it the best of it’s kind of thing? The worst? Maybe it’s just average. Perhaps I’m holding a literal piece of shit. You can’t know. So can you form any sort if concrete opinion about it, without having anything to react to? Logic would say no. Now if I showed it to you and let you react to it and form an opinion about it. Is that a bad thing? No. Of course not. Now what if you used your reaction/opinion of this specific thing to judge all future remotely similar things without consideration? Could that be a negative? Absolutely.
Having a reaction is normal and human. Humans are reactionary by necessity/nature. As is using those reactions as assistance in future decisions. Nothing wrong with any of that right. The problem creeps up when we let the reactions/opinions control us. And honestly, so far talking to you I haven’t gotten any sense of problematic reactionary nature. 🤷♂️ But I think we probably could both acknowledge that there are some attitudes around this topic that are on many sides. I mean after all that was kind of my whole point for even posting here. Just to understand if this was just a reactionary community that was against all machine learning and AI just for the sake of it. Or if it was more focused on the current negative Tech bro b*******. And so far I’m thinking it’s more the latter.
No, I’m certain I understand what you’re trying to say. It’s an overly distilled idea of the term “reactionary” to be “any kind of reaction”. You’re describing having a “reaction” in the sense of responding to information or stimulus, but that’s not what “reactionary” means.
It means being excessively predisposed to having a negative reaction, or to immediately jump to a negative reaction to some sort of change. It’s specifically negative in its definition. That’s why I say it’s an opinion, because it’s pushing a specific characterization that having any negative opinion of AI means you are merely acting based on an initial negative reaction, possibly or even likely based on a resistance to change, rather than having an opinion based on a real consideration of the idea and the circumstances around it.
News Flash!
AI fan says deranged arguments made by another AI fan are “pretty reasonable”.
In other news water is wet and the sun is hot.
That’s pretty reductionist and rude. It’s the same kind of shitty attitude that I’m calling them out for, and then you’re just doing the same thing here.
Yep I would never really describe myself a fan of any sort of tool. That would be like describing oneself as a fan of hammers, or pencils. They’re very useful tools. But I’m not sure I’m a fan of them like in a general concept sense LOL.
It’s all about the application. A pencil can be used to inspire and express oneself, or oppress. I would be a fan of the former but not of the latter. A hammer can be used to build shelter for the needy, or to murder. Again I would be a fan of the former but not the latter. But not a fan of pencils or hammers themselves it really is kind of a silly argument.