There’s nothing wrong with opposing technology as it currently stands. Maybe there’s room for nuance in language, but that doesn’t break their argument.

As it currently stands, the user above is right, and the labor of human artists is being siphoned into corporate profit with zero compensation. In the same way, at the beginning of the industrial revolution the labor of children was siphoned into profit with low compensation and deadly work conditions.

The way the textile industry was “fixed” was by opposition: speaking about the issues related to the technical developments and advocating for better treatment of the laborers. The only way AI as it currently stands can be “fixed” is also by opposition. Being critical of AI doesn’t mean “turn it off,” it means speaking about the issues related to the new technology and advocating for better treatment of the laborers.

Enabling millions of people to jump traditional entry barriers is a good thing

Except often it’s not even traditional entry barriers. Look how bad Google search has gotten, overrun by AI blogposts and advertising slop. Those aren’t entry barriers, those are “hold up, is this even content?” barriers.

But more to the point, the genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of objection is going to stuff it back in.

We regulated the assembly line and gave laborers compensation and safety rights when power tools increased their capacity. So too, we could force OpenAI et al to compensate the copyright holders from whom they scraped data. No one is calling for the genie to go back in, only for the corporatists to stop being the ones with all the wishes.

It’s because AI enthusiasts are genuinely proud and in awe of their work, and those that are still staunchly pro-AI are unaware of how much damage they have already done.

Two key facts:

• Generative AI is powerful and amazing
• Generative AI was immediately sold to the capital-owning class and is now being developed and guided by the motivations of profit

Freya Holmér does excellent analysis at around the 43:00 mark. She notes that AI represents a story of human triumph, and the innate quality or “coolness” that lies in that. But on the other hand, she explains how generative AI has quite quickly become entirely devorced from positively amplifying human expression. Exceptions to this exist, where people use AI creatively as an extension of themselves, but are exceptions only and not the rule.

I see other threads here discussing “is there even demand for authentic human art?” And those discussions ignore that yes, there is, and that authentic human art was scraped from copyright holders on the internet without their consent. “Is there even demand for human art?” is what is being asked, when the technology in question was immediately bought up and exploited by billion-dollar companies who are gaining immensely more value from generative AI than even the most lucrative AI-artist.

I encourage “AI bros” reading this to look around and engage with the art world. Genuinely. If you have always wanted to be a screenwriter or painter hobbyist, go engage with those stories. Go and see the human experiences, training and techniques that are visible in every line and brush stroke. Creativity is quite a wonderful and powerful thing and I always encourage it.

Then, after you have experienced these works to a new degree, look back. Don’t even ask “is AI good”—because we all agree, it’s an amazing feat. Instead ask “do I want this technology to be monopolized by corporate interests?”

deleted by creator

🚨multiple counts of transphobia detected in modlog, opinion invalid🚨

i love how i saw your comment and knew the EXACT moment from the EXACT video you were describing without even seeing the context of the conversation 😆

@DdCno1@beehaw.org you are thinking of Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans), a tiny nematode worm. My understanding is that while the entire brain is replicated, full behavior is not. Basic locomotion is still being worked on.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenWorm

Women don’t owe you sex, learn and grow as a person

The perceived need you talk about was very real.

Well the perceived need I talk about had to do with emotional repression, so looks like you badly misunderstood.

bell hooks is truly a blessing! she’s certainly not the first to do so, but she’s the most forefront and accessible of feminist voices to attend to the needs and experiences of men under patriarchy.

Women would get raped or killed

By whom? 🤔

And yes it does make sense that the physically stronger sex becomes the protector. Feminists will agree with you on this.

But they will take immediate issue with your supposition that men therefore need to be emotionally repressed in order to protect women from… most often, themselves.

your hypothesis isn’t stupid and in fact i think it lines up quite nicely with quite a few theories put forward by feminist scholars, including the one i summarized in my own response to this post. violence and the maintenance of control is a big element tied to most models of patriarchal masculinity :) you got good instincts

Short answer: It’s complicated.

Medium answer: As above, but in Western culture, this dynamic was reinforced by the advent of private property, which created a need to protect assets. While forms of patriarchy exist without private property, the patriarchy we recognize today is theorized to have been shaped by a perceived “need” for a dominant figure to hold and maintain property. Many factors have contributed to this dominance, but the factors of stoicism and emotional repression you describe are a significant facet tied to enforcing the male role as protector of property.

Long answer: As above, and as Simone de Beauvoir explains in The Second Sex, which is ~1000 pages, these roles evolved into patriarchal systems that have shaped society for centuries. Feminism as a whole is dedicated to unraveling these complexities, and the points above are only a broad overview of a much larger, nuanced topic.

Layman’s answer for those without time to read massive works of analysis: If you haven’t, I highly recommend reading bell hooks’ The Will to Change. It’s available as a free PDF on the Internet Archive. The book is under 200 pages and written to be accessible to non-academics, so feel free to skim and jump between chapters as suits your curiosity. The introduction and chapter 2 may be especially helpful for understanding this topic! 😁

tiny bit weird to riff off the “my body my choice” slogan used by women asking for rights for your own finance argument. speaking as someone who doesn’t want that phrase to become old hat or meaningless!

and mine

no thanks :) i wish you well

The post was about “leftists”

You opened your sentence with “people who make blanket statements”

??? okay buddy 😆

Right? 😂 Never fails to get a chuckle from me when I go to cite it.

big facts, also if you live in a densely populated area there may be one of these cooperative communities near you! you could in fact be the change you want to see in the world 💃

Lots of good answers here, so here’s a fact that might help you understand why people have these positions:

Based on currently available numbers, there are about 31 vacant housing units for every homeless person in the U.S.