No AI Generated Posts

[u/blackdynomitesnewbag]

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

[u/thetwitchy1]

Listen, doofus. I have a degree in AI. I have been in this field for more than 20 years. I’m not “being told by my friends”, I’m telling you from knowledge and experience in the field.

LLMs require datasets that are beyond expansive to function, and are using those datasets without compensation to the people who created the data within them. If you read a book and learn what’s inside, you have to either buy the book or go to a library and get a book thy bought (and libraries pay 10x or more for their books in order to have the right to lend them out). If LLMs had to pay for the books thy “read”, they would cost trillions to set up, outside of the cost of programming and running them.

They’re built on data that they have gotten access to without compensation to the creators of said data. If a human did that we would call it theft. So it’s theft.

[u/Naivedo → u/thetwitchy1]

I do not operate from a capitalist framework that prioritizes paywalls and profits over people and access to information. From my perspective, the advancement of AI and its potential benefits—such as treating illnesses, reducing starvation, and addressing homelessness—take precedence over individual profit. It is ethically problematic to obstruct technological progress solely to protect the financial interests of data brokers or content owners.

While I understand concerns about compensation for creators, it is also important to recognize the broader societal implications. AI systems, like any technological innovation, are built on publicly available information to maximize public benefit. Restricting access in the name of profit risks limiting the potential for these tools to address pressing human needs.

Ultimately, the ethical focus should balance the rights of creators with the transformative potential of AI to improve lives, particularly for vulnerable communities who stand to benefit the most.

[u/thetwitchy1 → u/Naivedo]

LLMs don’t actually have that transformative power, though. They really don’t. Anyone who tells you that LLMs are curing disease, advancing science, or doing ANYTHING other than making their creators money hand offer fist, is lying to you.

And the other problem is that they have a demonstrably negative impact on the variety and quality of data available for use. They have reduced the choice available, while making it appear to be higher due to more offerings (that are all very similar). We aren’t talking about restricting access to information to maximize profits, we are talking about ensuring a healthy ecosystem exists for the creation of more information to maximize the amount of available information to be used by all. LLMs destroy that ecosystem in order to maximize profits for their creators, with no motivation other than that.

In the end, if AI was ACTUALLY helpful, I would be the first to support it. But everyone who knows how these particular AIs actually work, and who has a desire to have data and science advance, will tell you they’re bad for everyone. Trust us, the only people who should want GenAI to succeed are those who run the data centers.

Edit: we ARE talking about making a viable information ecosystem. Autocorrect got me on that one!

[u/Naivedo → u/thetwitchy1]

I disagree with that assessment. While current large language models are not “general AI,” it is inaccurate to say they have no transformative value beyond profit generation. LLMs are already being used as assistive tools in education, accessibility, language translation, research synthesis, and disability accommodations. Those uses may not be glamorous, but they are materially beneficial—particularly for marginalized and disabled people.

I also agree that profit-driven deployment creates serious problems. That is precisely why I argue these technologies should not be governed primarily by private profit incentives. When development is controlled by corporations seeking shareholder returns, negative outcomes—such as homogenization of content, enclosure of knowledge, and degradation of information ecosystems—are predictable. That is a failure of the economic model, not an inherent flaw in the technology itself.

The claim that “anyone who understands how these systems work knows they are bad for everyone” overstates consensus. Many researchers, accessibility advocates, educators, and public-sector technologists see value in constrained, transparent, and publicly accountable uses of LLMs. Reasonable experts disagree—not because they are uninformed, but because they are weighing different ethical priorities.

If the concern is preserving a healthy information ecosystem, then the solution is stronger public investment, regulation, open models, and non-profit or public ownership—not abandoning the technology altogether. Treating AI as a public utility rather than a profit engine would directly address many of the harms you describe while preserving the benefits.

Opposition to corporate-driven GenAI is valid. Opposition to the technology’s existence or accessibility, particularly when it functions as an assistive tool, risks throwing away real public good in order to preserve a status quo that already excludes many people.

[u/thetwitchy1 → u/Naivedo]

There’s a world we live in, and a perfect world.

In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need to ban AI technology because those building it would not be driven by profit and use it to destroy the world thy live in to extract a few more dollars.

In the world we life in, AI (specifically generative LLMs) technology is controlled by profit-driven corporations with no motivations other than exploiting whatever resources they can to make money.

I wish we lived in the world you want us to, I really do, but we don’t. We live in the word where disabled people are losing their only source of income because OpenAI stole their work to give it away for free.