4 ms·

Turning it into a prohibition-style movement where using AI taints you forever unless your confess your sins and pledge total abstinence seems like the opposite

Turning it into a prohibition-style movement where using AI taints you forever unless your confess your sins and pledge total abstinence seems like the opposite for the group that wants to present itself as a return to sanity and moderation. It would be better to say, "Do what you want elsewhere, but we don't do that here." If you want to go full-radical, bombing a few data centers would probably be more effective than being mean to randos who used Midjourney a few times.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
Hey, I am not trying to be mean to anyone. We all are forced to use technology more than we could choose too. Some friends and family of mine use AI and I am not mean to them. I just gently talk about it. Even my Macbook has some AI processor in it though I don't use it. There's no condemnation whatsoever, except for some who are really pushing AI.
- underlipton 2y ago
  >who refuse to interact with Zero-tolerance ostracization is mean. If you're not doing that, and simply setting your boundaries - "I don't like the technology, let's talk about something else" - that's one thing. That's not what you were encouraging people to do in GP. I think we should be concise in our rhetoric, because it does have the potential to create needless conflict. "But you just said-" I did. People keep saying that AI is an existential threat requiring the most extreme action to stop. So... do people really believe that? Or are they just saying it? The treehuggers have a whole file on their actions[1]; where are the luddites? Is there really conviction, or just people letting off steam at convenient targets.[2] [1]: https://www.dhs.gov/archive/science-and-technology/publication/st-frg-overview-bombing-and-arson-attacks-environmental-and-animal-rights-extremists https://www.dhs.gov/archive/science-and-technology/publicati... [2]: I am not encouraging nor do I condone illegal or destructive acts, I'm analogizing a similar movement and its tactics.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    I do think there has to be some responsibility taken, rather than being "nice" all the time. And I was speaking of a business sense. If someone uses AI in their own work, I fully support not supporting them. That's not social ostracization, that's just good business sense in not supporting a technology that I don't believe in. So yeah, let me be clear: I absolutely support boycotting people who use AI when it comes to business decisions, and I absolutely support an economic war of attrition against them. You know what's mean? Creating a technology that takes other people's jobs en masse like AI. But refusing to do business with those who use AI? I think that's fair play, and if it is at all mean, then it's just karma.
    - underlipton 2y ago
      You're conflating the totally sound business decision not to use AI (as it currently exists, in its current legal limbo) in production, with an emotion-driven appeal to normalcy (which itself you have conflated with justice). Support, boycott, war: these are words when your intent is to not associate with someone at all, not just in a business sense. You're trying to present your argument as soft and hard at the same time, and I'm saying that it's completely disingenuous if you don't choose one or the other: either this is an existential crisis that deserves radical action, or it's not and therefore not worth ruining relationships or unintentionally presenting yourself as hysterical or a less-than-rational bully. I'm asking you to choose for your sake, and for the sake of the argument you end up actually wanting to stand behind.

vouaobrasil 2y ago

Hey, I am not trying to be mean to anyone. We all are forced to use technology more than we could choose too. Some friends and family of mine use AI and I am not mean to them. I just gently talk about it. Even my Macbook has some AI processor in it though I don't use it. There's no condemnation whatsoever, except for some who are really pushing AI.

underlipton 2y ago
>who refuse to interact with Zero-tolerance ostracization is mean. If you're not doing that, and simply setting your boundaries - "I don't like the technology, let's talk about something else" - that's one thing. That's not what you were encouraging people to do in GP. I think we should be concise in our rhetoric, because it does have the potential to create needless conflict. "But you just said-" I did. People keep saying that AI is an existential threat requiring the most extreme action to stop. So... do people really believe that? Or are they just saying it? The treehuggers have a whole file on their actions[1]; where are the luddites? Is there really conviction, or just people letting off steam at convenient targets.[2] [1]: https://www.dhs.gov/archive/science-and-technology/publication/st-frg-overview-bombing-and-arson-attacks-environmental-and-animal-rights-extremists https://www.dhs.gov/archive/science-and-technology/publicati... [2]: I am not encouraging nor do I condone illegal or destructive acts, I'm analogizing a similar movement and its tactics.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  I do think there has to be some responsibility taken, rather than being "nice" all the time. And I was speaking of a business sense. If someone uses AI in their own work, I fully support not supporting them. That's not social ostracization, that's just good business sense in not supporting a technology that I don't believe in. So yeah, let me be clear: I absolutely support boycotting people who use AI when it comes to business decisions, and I absolutely support an economic war of attrition against them. You know what's mean? Creating a technology that takes other people's jobs en masse like AI. But refusing to do business with those who use AI? I think that's fair play, and if it is at all mean, then it's just karma.
  - underlipton 2y ago
    You're conflating the totally sound business decision not to use AI (as it currently exists, in its current legal limbo) in production, with an emotion-driven appeal to normalcy (which itself you have conflated with justice). Support, boycott, war: these are words when your intent is to not associate with someone at all, not just in a business sense. You're trying to present your argument as soft and hard at the same time, and I'm saying that it's completely disingenuous if you don't choose one or the other: either this is an existential crisis that deserves radical action, or it's not and therefore not worth ruining relationships or unintentionally presenting yourself as hysterical or a less-than-rational bully. I'm asking you to choose for your sake, and for the sake of the argument you end up actually wanting to stand behind.