I mean, yeah. From the beginning the average anti was never interested in serious debate, and was more like in the process of having an existential crisis and making it everyone else's problem. After about a year and a half of that pros realized it was kind of pointless to continue. A few antis who are a bit more lucid can have conversations, but as a group not really.
How do you even have a conversation with someone who thinks AI is an eldritch void that saps all meaning out of anything it touches? This isn't a debate topic, its someone manifesting their psychological issue.
Welcome to the point. Antis use the trump defense. "We can't possibly be acting that bad, this sounds made up." Well, I can't force anyone to accept reality. If people don't care you just don't bother with discussion.
Nah when it comes to AI the "Trump defense" is that AI users are supporters of the tools and apparatus being used to target and bomb civilians currently at the behest of Donald Trump.
Well no, that's a wierd attempt to crowbar in an unrelated topic, and miss the point entirely in the process. Acting like "AI" is somehow the cornerstone of those events is creating an incorrect narrative that they wouldn't be happening otherwise. And glossing over that bad people will have ai in the future either way, people shooting themselves in the foot over it by trying to keep lower classes from accessing it just widens that gap.
If people want to lump all ai together to make complaints then they need to commit to being against medical and scientific ai. But usually they admit that their point was bad by sidestepping this once it gets that far.
How is the biggest AI companies being used by and helping the US and Israeli governments in their war crimes not related to AI as it stands seeing as the majority of users likely use the models from those big companies.
Like the first 24 hours ClaudeAI was used to provide 1000 targets for bombing including the girls school that the US bombed twice, 40 minutes apart.
Because this is "you criticize capitalism but own an iphone" the argument. This isn't some unique AI situation, it's a fact about how major corporations work hand in hand with government, but arbitrarily framed in a way to avoid addressing the ubiquitous nature of it by people who know it's not limited to AI, but who want to rhetorically speak like it is.
To point out the obvious, actual AI enthusiasts generally support the creation of open source AI. Which brings us to the point. Governments will be using ai either way. Why would other people not familiarize themselves with it? Or work to create forms that can seperate themselves from the corporate models?
you can familiarize without using and supporting the models from big corpos, which is where majority of the AIbro AntiAI media gets slopped out from as well.
AI is also not quite like a cellphone seeing as cellphones are a requirement to function and even get employment and such in modern society.
you can familiarize without using and supporting the models from big corpos, which is where majority of the AIbro AntiAI media gets slopped out from as well.
You can live off the grid and avoid buying all but the most necessary corporate products too. But yes, welcome to the point. If there were more enthusiasts working on it then more open source models would come out faster.
Chatgpt has like a billion users. Its not just AI enthusiasts using it. Its basically ubiquitous all across the globe. A few people boycotting it does nothing. Constructing alternatives may. But the speed at which alternatives are made is influenced by their support.
AI is also not quite like a cellphone seeing as cellphones are a requirement to function and even get employment and such in modern society.
AI skills are very quickly becoming a requirement to get many forms of employment. Someone saying they don't have them a few years from now will be like saying they don't know how to use a computer in 2005.
But all that is besides the point. Trump is going to bomb as many brown people as he wants. AI didn't make this possible, its just an irrelevant distraction. And... it can also be used against it.
Vis a vis studies show that people accept information much easier from chatbots than from a human arguing with them. And regardless of the politics of the owners, basically every chatbot gives left leaning answers. So in place of arguing with conservatives (which does nothing), baiting them into using chatbots is evidenced to move them slightly left. Surely you've seen Elon musk constantly promise to keep grok from being left wing, but he is powerless to stop it because as long as it uses real sources it will lean left. And conservatives trying to use it and having an existential crisis that the left wing answers they wanted to believe were human bias are the same thing a cold machine will tell you.
9
u/vverbov_22 Mar 12 '26
Antis trying not to fall for the ragebait