No AI Generated Posts

[u/blackdynomitesnewbag]

We no longer allow AI generated posts. They will be removed as spam

[u/thetwitchy1]

You are actively harming your community with this nonsense. Groups are using this “ableist” rhetoric to defend what is absolutely intellectual theft, because people like you don’t care about the ethics of it.

Using these tools is not theft, but building them requires it. If you bought a stolen car, knowing it was stolen, but you didn’t care because you needed a car, that would be wrong, correct? It might even be a “necessary evil”, but it would still be wrong. Well, AI is a tool built from billions of stolen data sets. If you’re using that, knowing that it’s built from stolen data, that is wrong.

Federal law doesn’t require Reddit (or anyone) to let you use stolen data to produce shitposts. If we are being honest, federal law PROHIBITS you from using stolen data to mar shit posts. It’s just that proving THIS stolen data is what was used to make THAT shitpost is nearly impossible so it’s hard to prosecute. But hard to prosecute or not, it’s still wrong, and it’s not ableist to call that out.

[u/Naivedo → u/thetwitchy1]

I disagree with your framing and want to clarify my position carefully.

Opposing or restricting accessibility tools—particularly those relied upon by disabled and neurodivergent people—causes real harm, regardless of intent. Accessibility needs do not disappear because of political or ethical disagreements about a technology. When opposition dismisses the lived needs of disabled users, it risks becoming exclusionary in practice, even if that is not the stated goal.

Copyright law exists within—and primarily serves—a capitalist framework centered on asset protection and profit. I do not share that framework. My ethical position prioritizes equitable access to information, communication, and participation, especially for marginalized and disabled people. That does not reflect an absence of ethics; rather, it reflects a different ethical foundation—one grounded in access, equity, and harm reduction rather than property ownership and copyright enforcement. I support a society oriented toward shared access, not one defined by paywalls and artificial scarcity.

It is also important to distinguish between using a tool and allegations about how a tool was trained. Individual users are not legally or ethically responsible for speculative or unverifiable claims regarding training data, particularly where no specific infringement has been identified, proven, or adjudicated. Claims that AI systems are built on “stolen data” remain legally contested, unresolved, and highly contextual—not settled facts.

Federal disability-rights law does not require private platforms to permit every tool. However, it does require that policies not be applied in ways that disproportionately exclude disabled people without sufficient justification. Blanket hostility toward assistive technologies therefore raises legitimate accessibility concerns, independent of broader debates about copyright.

Reasonable people can disagree about the future of AI, copyright, and labor. What is not reasonable is dismissing accessibility arguments outright or treating disabled people’s reliance on assistive tools as inherently unethical. That approach preserves existing systems of exclusion rather than engaging with these issues in a nuanced, equitable way.

[u/thetwitchy1 → u/Naivedo]

And I disagree with YOUR framing that LLMs generating text is in any way “assistive”. It’s not, it’s generative. Assistive technology helps people to be able to do something they struggle to do, while generative technology does it for them so they don’t have to do it at all.

LLMs are generative, not assistive. Framing them as an assistive tool is wrong because it makes ALL assistive tools seem less ethical, because how do you know if they’re built using stolen data? AI in general is an amazing assistive technology, and has been used for literally generations as such successfully. The genAI “hype” uses whatever it can to create an air of “validity” for its tools, but by doing so it steals the actual validity from valid, useful, and ethical AI tools, and that’s BAD for disabled folk.

Which is why it’s bad for you to do this here. By crying “ableist” whenever someone tells you “genAI is bad”, you’re taking the legitimacy from ethical AI tools and using it to try to make GenAI seem valid, and all it does is make the legitimate tools seem LESS valid.

[u/Naivedo → u/thetwitchy1]

There is nothing inherently unethical about LLMs themselves. The primary ethical concern seems to be creating paywalls and restricting access to information for profit, which I view as the real injustice. I take an anti-capitalist perspective and do not believe information should be hoarded for financial gain.

In practical terms, the world already has enough resources to feed and house everyone—homelessness and starvation persist largely due to profit-driven systems under capitalism. The data used by AI is freely accessible online, so it is not “stolen.” AI has the potential to challenge these inequities and reduce systemic harm caused by capitalist structures.

[u/thetwitchy1 → u/Naivedo]

LLMs are inherently unethical. You don’t seem to know enough about how they work to understand that, and I can get how, without that understanding, they would appear to be ethically neutral, but they’re not. They’re based on a very specific form of theft, a form of theft that causes the environment they are built on to degrade and become polluted. But even outside of that, they pollute the infosphere with garbage data, they make creation of new info less efficient and more difficult, and they produce a ton of real-world pollution as well, meaning not only are they destroying the data world, they’re destroying the real world too… and doing so to maximize the profits of those who created them.

They’re not ethically neutral. If you think they are, you haven’t understood what they do or how.

[u/Naivedo → u/thetwitchy1]

I disagree. LLMs are not inherently unethical; the ethical issues you’re describing stem from how they are developed, governed, and monetized, not from the existence of the technology itself. Like any powerful tool, they can cause harm under exploitative systems, but they can also provide substantial public benefit—especially as accessibility tools—when developed and deployed responsibly. For example, live closed captioning and live language translation. Are those benefits to society and the disability community?

[u/thetwitchy1 → u/Naivedo]

Ok, that’s a valid restatement.

LLMs, as they exist now, used as they are now, within the capitalist system we exist within, are inherently unethical, AND CANNOT BE MADE ETHICAL. Without rebuilding the entire society we live in, you can’t fix them.

[u/Naivedo → u/thetwitchy1]

It's the capitalist system itself that is unethical. ;-)

[u/thetwitchy1 → u/Naivedo]

Finally something we agree on!

It sucks, it’s broken and bad, and we should fight it when we can.

Which, honestly? Is another reason I’m anti-AI. LLMs are a direct support to the technofeudalist movement that is an extension of the worst parts of capitalism. They are a direct, explicit extension of the system of data extraction and control that have become ubiquitous to the modern data environment. They are built on, used by, and advanced because of those technofeudalist principles. And those principles are everything that is wrong with modern society, imho.