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:

  • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Hey y’all, dbzer0 admin there. We’re not anti Genai as a technology in general but we’re absolutely anti-corporate genai. I believe the only valid way to use genai is if all weights are open source and all output is in the commons. I generally hate the current techbro Ai bubble and we have no stake in it. However I will defend proles using genai for their own entertainment as much as I will defend proles using piracy likewise. We think the world is would be better without copyrights. AMA.

    • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s weird to see the doublethink of people here.

      “We don’t want corporations to control everything! They have too much power!”

      “Exactly, we should ignore their requests and the copyright system they made!”

      “Yeah! Copyright doesn’t help us! Pirate everything!”

      “We can use their tools to dismantle them! Including AI!”

      “Woah, I don’t know if I actually agree with copyright being abolished… Maybe copyright is actually good when companies get to abuse the laws they made… I’m for copyright abolishment in everything but using tools.”

      How much do you want to bet that the people who think being Anti-AI is somehow revolutionary, shares memes and media without permission of the copyright holder of the images and media? Disney would love to enforce that sharing a meme with any of their IP is a crime and you must pay to do it.

      The hypocrisy of these people never gets old. They’ll advocate for piracy and soulseek but the moment you ask a open source, single instance AI thing to make a meme, its suddenly an affront to mankind.

      • xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        i think you misunderstand entirely.
        it’s not about copyright, it’s about stealing other people’s work and pretending like it’s your own, as well as selling it as your own….
        as well as, it dilutes and drowns out real artists with infinite low-quality slop….

        • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 day ago

          Like how piracy steals from corporations, ruining the value of the movie made in 1996?

          Wait it doesn’t steal, it copies. It doesn’t remove anything from anyone. Same for AI. If you want art, pay an artist. Pay for the right to share the media.

          • xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            nope, not like that.

            people aren’t going on the pirate bay and saying, “i made this movie! it’s my creation! i’m a bittorrent director!”.

            that would be like AI artists stealing things….
            i don’t care about them copying things to train their models. I care about people taking the output and posing as artists.

            • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 day ago

              i don’t care about them copying things to train their models. I care about people taking the output and posing as artists.

              That is fine, I can agree with most of that. It’s not stealing, it’s just slapping a new label on something. Maybe plagiarism is a better term.

    • go $fsck yourself@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I believe that as it currently stands, AI is too closely tied to big corporations, especially for the average person. So, without specifically including the caveat of “this thing was generated using an open source, locally run model” or something along those lines, it’s reasonable to assume it was generated by using big corp-run AI giving them more data and power over the individuals. I also think giving too much credence to AI gives the big techbro AI bubble more value and power. Additionally, AI makes it exceedingly easy for low-quality or nefarious content to proliferate and effectively choke-out thoughtful content, similar to how misinformation/disinformation takes over factual information. Like I mentioned, I agree that ‘AI is just a tool’, but that doesn’t exclude it from being extremely frequently abused, which then puts a sour taste in my mouth. I could go on for why I tend to dislike AI in general while acknowledging what possible benefits there may be for it. None of my reasoning is founded on any of the claims db0 users were trying to force onto me.

      According to your fellow admin and other very loud and rude users from db0 (whose behaviors have been validated by the same admin), that makes me a “right-wing neoliberal”. Instead of engaging in a discussion about it, those people instead berated me and kept pushing the same idea.

      /–edit–/

      To add to this, I think a big contention point is that there is no rule against stating that you don’t like AI or reasons to dislike AI, but the user’s hostility were a reaction as if that were the case. If there were an instance or community rule for that, then these reactions would be understandable (though, still an overreaction IMO).

      • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        It seems to me that if you go to a community and are rude about the memes being shared you should be able to take some rudeness back.

        • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 day ago
          • Goes into a community.
          • Ignores the rules and community and says they’re wrong for doing something in their free time on their own space.
          • Gets the rules applied to them and told to stop, golden rule is applied to them when they were being rude in the first place.
          • Complains about mod abuse on another community, claiming victim that rules were enforced on them.

          Can we leave the “I have my first amendment rights to say anything I want, anywhere I want!” reddit bullshit on reddit? I know lemmy.world is Reddit 2 but man this is weird.

          • go $fsck yourself@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            1 day ago

            You’re now participating in what was described in db0 as a “brigade”. Especially with your disingenuous “”“summary”“” of events.

            How much more hypocrisy can you db0 people rack up here?

        • go $fsck yourself@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          I would agree with you if the rudeness was at a similar level, or if the claims made in response weren’t absolutely unfounded.

          Not to mention a moderator, let alone an admin, should be held to a higher standard.

          • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            We’re anarchists. We absolutely demand to be held at the same standard as everyone else.

            • go $fsck yourself@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              Well that would be nice if at least that was being upheld.

              But the point of being held to a higher standard is because trust is an important factor. If an admin can’t handle themselves better than the average person, then they shouldn’t be entrusted with the responsibilities they carry. That’s a standard that is equal for all people. If you are entrusted with responsibility that requires a higher than normal amount of trust, then you are expected to handle yourself in those situations better than the average person

              /–edit–/

              You also just ignored the other point, the main point, so that you can virtue-signal how much of an anarchist you are.

              Based on your own actions, or lack of action, it doesn’t seem you are here with genuine intent and instead it seems you are here more for damage control.

              • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                Our instance trusts us because they can initiate a a recall vote against any admin at any time.

                • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  I trust ya more than people who get mad at communities having their own rules and then complain on other communities about it. I don’t think I’ve ever really had a major issue with ya.

              • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 day ago

                You also just ignored the other point, the main point, so that you can virtue-signal how much of an anarchist you are.

                Right wing buzzwords, no wonder you don’t like anarchists.

      • jsomae@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        I also think giving too much credence to AI gives the big techbro AI bubble more value and power. Additionally, AI makes it exceedingly easy for low-quality or nefarious content to proliferate and effectively choke-out thoughtful content, similar to how misinformation/disinformation takes over factual information.

        You say two contradictory things – that we shouldn’t give AI credence, but also that it’s dangerous.

        • go $fsck yourself@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          I don’t see how those are mutually exclusive points.

          By “too much credence” I mean giving it more credit than it deserves. As in making it seem like it can do more than it’s currently capable of. “Too much” does not mean “any”.

          Just like misinformation and disinformation, the information itself should not be given any credence, but the impacts of spreading it is that it takes significantly more effort to counteract than it does to spread it. In the case of AI, giving the same level of a platform provides an easy entry for low-quality or false-information content that’s AI generated to overpower more thoughtful content at a rate that is difficult to combat.

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      We think the world is would be better without copyrights.

      Why on earth would you think a lack of copyright would be better for anyone (especially the labourers who actually create shit) while we all still have to live in this capitalist hellscape? Maybe in a perfect world we could do without it; but we sure as hell do not live in a perfect world.

      • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Because copyrights are a form of enclosure and they are there to benefit the rich. It’s part of the hellscape and their primary purpose is to introduce artificial scarcity so that human culture can be monetized for their benefit.

      • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Ideas can’t be owned, and copyright and intellectual property are capitalist nonsense. If you don’t want to share an idea, don’t bring it into the world. Because once you do, it collectively belongs to the human condition.