GenAI advocates would rather get rid of IP altogether, though. They claim they’re all running ethical models already and it’s perfect, but they also want artists’ right to opt-out to not exist. Nevermind compensation, or the need for opt-in, we can’t even agree on the importance of consent.

I’m sure those free services run on pure hopes and dreams and will do so forever.

There’s someone close to me whose near entire existence is basically pain. They still draw.

They hate the idea that their works got sucked by billionaires into giant plagiarism machines that are enriching them further. Pro AI people and tech bros think they should just suck it up and start using fucking AI horde or something, despite the fact that this trend makes them sick and the proposed solutions don’t tackle real issues, but spread or ignore them.

One of my main gripes with GenAI is the tech industry’s usual disregard for consent. GenAI users saying we should get rid of it altogether doesn’t endear their ideal future to me. Saying the same thing as Sam Altman, but totally in a leftist way, just grosses me out.

I’ve heard that many men do this because they’ve realized, in some capacity, that outright admitting they’re right-wing limits their opportunities. In my circles, I’ve noticed this “I’m actually a centrist/apolitical” trend is also found among popular developers and tech influencers.

Saying you’re anti-woke gets you shunned and surrounded by horrible people, but saying you’re just apolitical gets you the blessing and protection of self-proclaimed centrists. When you, for example, marginalize LGBT folks and get called out, countless will gather to complain about people “dragging politics into tech.” Bryan Lunduke will come out of his cave and write a piece about how the trans fetish is trying to kill open source.

Thank you for acknowledging that. And you may be right about blocking.

I just think it’s difficult for folks, me included, to merely hide what they consider to be an issue. They’re not comparable, but if I saw a self-proclaimed leftist community sharing anti-union propaganda, I’d rather discuss it. I’m not claiming that’s the healthiest mindset or the correct one, but I don’t think it’s entirely without reason.

These situations, wherein a group broadcasts an idea to everybody, then silences dissent because it’s “their turf, their rules,” never seemed fair. Shields like “they’re trolling”, “neoliberals”, “bots” and “brigading” intensify the issue—some mod comments read like a mirror of r/conservative. Why does the blame lie solely with one side, when the subject is controversial and sharing it with everyone was also a deliberate choice?

There was talk of an option, for communities, to self-exclude from “all” feeds. Wonder if such features could be a better solution, here. I’ll refrain from talking AI and ethics in db0 in the future, but I feel like they should do better, themselves.

I’m not blaming AP, just refuting the absurd brigade claim.

Because I make no secret of my opinions and don’t filter what I interact with?

If I was part of a secret, AI-hating cabal, what the hell would I be doing here on a thread with like 50 interactions? This has got to be the least advantageous, least productive, most contrived way to further my goals: in the midst of “enemy turf,” with no support, getting downvoted and looking like a loser trying to explain what brigading isn’t.

There’s no pretty way to say this, but you’re acting like a conspiracy theorist.

I’m not denying the nature of brigades, I’m saying a lot of the internet hates the genAI trend, is extremely open about it, and that post hit All. This is the simplest explanation, which you’re saying isn’t the case despite having no actual evidence pointing otherwise. But merely trying to prove the obvious would feed into an apparent persecution complex.

If I stay quiet, you’re right, but if I talk you’re righter. Have a good day, I guess.

I don’t think we’ll agree here, but it has to be said:

There is no brigade. You need to stop trying to redefine that term. There is no coordination, no plan, no private organizing. What you see is an entirely natural, decentralized reaction to an obnoxious and harmful trend.

You’re broadcasting, shouting at a megaphone, then blaming people who didn’t preemptively put earplugs in. You’re blaming people who have every right to use or not whatever platform features they wish and framing their disjointed actions as something else.

If you don’t like these reactions, you’re also free to stop seeing them. So maybe suck it up, or block some people? This argument sucks.

That’s too far, though I understand the feeling.

I think we should save the Hitler comparisons for individuals that actually deserve it. AI bros and genAI promoters are frequently assholes, but not unapologetically fascist genocidal ones.

Another isolated case for the endlessly growing list of positive impacts of the GenAI with no accountability trend. A big shout-out to people promoting and fueling it, excited to see into what pit you lead us next.

This experiment is also nearly worthless because, as proved by the researchers, there’s no guarantee the accounts you interact with on Reddit are actual humans. Upvotes are even easier for machines to use, and can be bought for cheap.

Is criticizing the AI trend and its adopters in any manner always against db0/comm rules?

I posted two comments, one criticism and one a question to another commenter. None palpatine reaction images. Both were deleted.

Tell activitypub to stop putting db0 AI slop on my instance’s All front-page, then. It’s not brigading. If you don’t want interaction with the outside world, stop federating with it.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

The articles mentions that scroll and the arrow keys no longer adjust volume. Nothing could be earth shattering because it’s video streaming software, but it does seem to come with some functionality loss at this stage.

Chatgpt told me no once and I’ve been traumatized ever since. I know my place, now.

Right. In this instance, with hindsight (noticed it’s a meme community), I wouldn’t say anything. I’ve seen similar cases where the intent was to push someone down, though. I wasn’t sure, and sided with caution.

I didn’t mean to act uptight, or attack the commenter (I tried a mild tone), my bad.

I feel like there’s a way to communicate “np++ is the best” without calling people fake humans, even as a joke.

You’re right about it not being inherent to the tech, and I sincerely apologize if I insist too much despite that. This will be my last reply to you. I hope I gave you something constructive to think about rather than just noise.

The issue, and my point, is that you’re defending a technicality that doesn’t matter in real world usage. Nearly no one uses non-corporate, ethical AI. Most organizations working with it aren’t starting from scratch because it’s disadvantageous or outright unfeasible resourcewise. Instead, they use pre-existing corporate models.

Edd may not be technically right, but he is practically right. The people he’s referring to are extremely unlikely to be using or creating completely ethical datasets/AI.

The vast majority of people don’t think in legal terms, and it’s always possible for something to be both legal and immoral. See: slavery, the actions of the third reich, killing or bankrupting people by denying them health insurance… and so on.

There are teenagers, even children, who posted works which have been absorbed into AI training without their awareness or consent. Are literal children to blame for not understanding laws that companies would later abuse when they just wanted to share and participate in a community?

And AI companies aren’t using merely licensed material, they’re using everything they can get their hands on. If they’re pirating you bet your ass they’ll use your nudes if they find them, public domain or not. Revenge porn posted by an ex? Straight into the data.

So your argument is:

• It’s legal

But:

• What’s legal isn’t necessarily right
• You’re blaming children before companies
• AI makers actually use illegal methods, too

It’s closer to victim blaming than you think.

The law isn’t a reliable compass for what is or isn’t right. When the law is wrong, it should be changed. IP law is infamously broken in how it advantages and gets (ab)used by companies. For a few popular examples: see how youtube mediates between companies and creators, nintendo suing everyone they can (costs victims more than it does nintendo), everything disney did to IP legislation.