Eh I don’t really like honorifics. I like people to just use my name.

I’m not in a position to have children financially at the moment, and I am getting older so that might not be possible. Also I’ve been told that chemo can cause sterility (I went through chemotherapy for breast cancer). It might not be possible for me to have biological children anymore.

It would be better for everyone if people who wanted to use AI just ran AI models themselves locally on their own hardware and people stopped giving money or data to these trillion dollar tech companies. And of course if they don’t want to they don’t have to, I’m not your mom, do what you want.

I would only be comfortable with that if an independent group was doing that for a good cause and would publish their results for all to see. You know, for the good of humanity. If a corporation does it they’ll do everything in their power to gatekeep it, so they can bankrupt anyone who needs it and profit off their suffering. I say that as someone with a lot of medical debt myself.

You don’t act at all like someone who doesn’t care, you act like someone who’s butthurt that others don’t unequivocally agree with you. Which is why you put the effort into Sealioning and trolling. There is nothing good that will ever come out of discussion with you. If there was, you wouldn’t be trying to continue to have an argument or trying to fling insults at people for not agreeing with you.

Ignore them, they’re a troll. They don’t have anything real to add to the discussion, and they never did.

Just a hunch, I don’t think you really actually care. I feel like you’re just trying to continue an argument primarily for emotional reasons, after being told to disengage.

Disengage.

I didn’t say it shouldn’t be a focus of discussion. I’m saying separate it from open source projects and their users, because open source projects and their users don’t help Sam Altman and friends in any way. These projects exist largely in spite of corporate AI.

Are they though? Are people who use AI horde or their own GPUs “complicit” in “most of the issues”? If people most people used their own GPUs how many of these issues would really remain without the capitalist aspect (including it being shoved into every website by venture capitalists to support their ponzi scheme so they don’t crash and burn)?

This isn’t the first time I’m hearing your arguments. It reminds me of the metaverse arguments where every failed metaverse is not really the metaverse. The problem with that is you don’t get to dictate what counts as AI, and what doesn’t.

I think these are different arguments because I’m not saying corporate AI isn’t AI itself. Just not the whole concept. Compare that to the the Metaverse which is in and of itself a corporate project designed solely for a capitalist purpose. I’ve never seen a Metaverse built for a hobbyist purpose but I have seen and used AIs built for hobbyist or community purposes. Just like corporate social media isn’t all social media. Corporate AI isn’t all AI, many people including @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com are building out non-corporate solutions. Which is why the arguments can’t be applied equally to everything.

That’s not really an acceptable response for a queer community, full of queer people who’ve spent a large part of our lives being called slurs by people who feel righteous in their hatred.

No I think it’s fair to be mad at AI companies, and the harm they cause. That anger has to be attributed towards the actual problem though, it needs to be based on the fact. Not directed at people who use AI, who probably would use the more efficient open models if they knew about them.

It isn’t really. It’s their broad and common arguments. The things that unite them.

The hyperspecific arguments are the ones about environmental impacts. And I say they’re hyperspecific because they only relate to corporate AI models which only exist because of the venture capitalist bubble. Which is being applied to all AI models even the small FOSS ones.

Mental related ones are hyper specific because they only apply to specific unhealthy use cases, but are being applied broadly to everyone (i.e. people who call me a “schizo” for sharing Art made by an AI).

The factual arguments are hyper specific.

Unfortunately most people in the FuckAI crowd only care about facts when those facts support their feelings. Critical thinking and cognitive decline being a long time coming in the last few decades attributed to computer use in general as well as a decline in the competency of the US educational system isn’t as supportive to their arguments as something that says “AI exposure is making people stupid and crazy”.

I’ve found that around 80% of FuckAI discourse is down to preconcieved biases and personal dislike while clinging to the 20% of real and very hyper specific arguments to try and support those opinions as factual or objective.

It’s why the top 3 generalized anti-AI arguments are:

• Intellectual property
• Climate change (Carbon footprint, if the subject is LocalLLMs)
• Brain rot arguments, which might use very new, possibly flawed studies, or just abuse clinical terms as if they’re slurs (“schizo”, “psycho”, “delusional” etc.)

I think they mean humans who don’t know or care about the subject can still pull shit out of their ass and lie to sound smart. And they do it more when they get approval and admiration for it. Doesn’t mean humans can’t, but a lot of them find that easier.

I really hate how capitalists are painting AI as some kind of everything solution when it’s not. Like all tools it has specific usecases.

How about not being someone who uses slurs, that doesn’t help justify your position. People who use slurs or feel the need to use slurs are generally reactionary people who don’t have good counter-arguments.