If we allow the far-right to continue merging political power with AI without guardrails, we will see the rise of a system where freedom is algorithmically rationed.
People hide their AI usage to avoid hate -> making less people aware of the depths of what it can be used for,
This does not follow. People who despise AI still talk about what it’s capable of. In fact, they probably talk about it more.
Actually, hate and anger spread throughout a population far more easily than genuine interest and novelty. I would think our distaste for it would actually be very helpful for propagating information about it.
you should also know why it’s a good tool for misinformation.
Okay, you’re right that it doesn’t suck in that specific way. But spiritually, it sucks very much.
You’re not really talking about counter-propaganda, though, you’re just talking about people… giving up the fight about it? Because it’s annoying to some game devs? When does the action come?
Keep in mind, any counter-propaganda strategy must involve its (AI’s) eventual dismantling or full, legal banishment because a democracy cannot survive a technology that wears people’s skin and drowns out other voices like this. Democracy cannot survive a Dead Internet.
But really, these technologies have little to no bearing on the debate around AI,
They do in the sense that all of them are driven by neophilia and big tent people horny for cash and power. Bitcoin would have been a paradigm shift had it been adopted by society, but it would have been a worse society. Because Bitcoin sucks.
I do not share your experience about people that despise AI talking about it more, but if your community does, that’s great. But I am kind of skeptical that really is the case because of some of your statements.
Most communities I see like that are incredibly rude and dismissive of people that see the positive sides of the technology, and even objective statements about the technology, are dismissed because they are not negative of the technology (eg. that AI is advancing medical research and healthcare, or also being used to stop scammers), and people that discuss that are mocked or ostracized by those groups. It’s cult like behavior, where only the group opinion is allowed. And if you even dare like something that was made with AI despite more and more media such as games uses it, even if you still have reasonable objections, oh boy.
I highly disagree with your statement that hate and anger spreads an opinion far more easily, because it contains an assumption that people agree on it ahead of time. Take racism. I hope you’re a nice person, so seeing a wildly racist post hating on X people, show up on your feed isn’t suddenly going to make you think “Huh maybe they have a point, X people are to be hated.”, it just makes you very angry and resentful in return, with an opposing opinion, aka polarization. And that kills the conversation. For racism that’s kind of warranted, since the person with the irrational hatred isn’t to be taken seriously. And regardless of if the position is pro, neutral, or anti AI, if it is defended with irrationality, they will be the ones in this analogy. I equivalently denounce people that have no respect for artists and see AI as a way to kill the creative industry as I denounce people that pretend nothing good can ever come from AI and everyone that uses it is without a conscience or has no feeling for creativity.
As for your points about fighting it, I cannot find any point in it that I agree with.
Three or four years ago I would have entertained the notion that it might go away, but it has been showing up all over society. It’s an unattainable goal. Even if it somehow got banned in one country, that does not stop other countries around the world, with different cultures and values from using it, nor stop bad actors from using it so long as it cannot be proven to be AI. It’s like thinking because drugs are illegal, nobody is doing drugs. And to drive that point even further, positive uses such as certain drugs ending up being used for effective treatment of PTSD or chronic pain, end up being undiscovered. That’s the kind of world irrational reasoning builds.
And by having an opinion that can only be satisfied by someone unequivocally agreeing with you, with no room for reasonable disagreeing on some aspects such as fair usage, it makes alliances that could actually get majorities to secure rights and fair treatment impossible.
They do in the sense that all of them are driven by neophilia and big tent people horny for cash and power.
See, this is the kind of statement I do denounce if you are saying this applies to AI, and why I don’t really believe you are in a community that reasonably discusses AI. It’s such a close minded statement that is only applicable to most big companies that use AI. It doesn’t respect artists that use it whose work has been systematically undervalued, nor researchers that use it for the common good, nor any other use that has a reasonable grounds to not be considered the same.
This does not follow. People who despise AI still talk about what it’s capable of. In fact, they probably talk about it more.
Actually, hate and anger spread throughout a population far more easily than genuine interest and novelty. I would think our distaste for it would actually be very helpful for propagating information about it.
Okay, you’re right that it doesn’t suck in that specific way. But spiritually, it sucks very much.
You’re not really talking about counter-propaganda, though, you’re just talking about people… giving up the fight about it? Because it’s annoying to some game devs? When does the action come?
Keep in mind, any counter-propaganda strategy must involve its (AI’s) eventual dismantling or full, legal banishment because a democracy cannot survive a technology that wears people’s skin and drowns out other voices like this. Democracy cannot survive a Dead Internet.
They do in the sense that all of them are driven by neophilia and big tent people horny for cash and power. Bitcoin would have been a paradigm shift had it been adopted by society, but it would have been a worse society. Because Bitcoin sucks.
I do not share your experience about people that despise AI talking about it more, but if your community does, that’s great. But I am kind of skeptical that really is the case because of some of your statements.
Most communities I see like that are incredibly rude and dismissive of people that see the positive sides of the technology, and even objective statements about the technology, are dismissed because they are not negative of the technology (eg. that AI is advancing medical research and healthcare, or also being used to stop scammers), and people that discuss that are mocked or ostracized by those groups. It’s cult like behavior, where only the group opinion is allowed. And if you even dare like something that was made with AI despite more and more media such as games uses it, even if you still have reasonable objections, oh boy.
I highly disagree with your statement that hate and anger spreads an opinion far more easily, because it contains an assumption that people agree on it ahead of time. Take racism. I hope you’re a nice person, so seeing a wildly racist post hating on X people, show up on your feed isn’t suddenly going to make you think “Huh maybe they have a point, X people are to be hated.”, it just makes you very angry and resentful in return, with an opposing opinion, aka polarization. And that kills the conversation. For racism that’s kind of warranted, since the person with the irrational hatred isn’t to be taken seriously. And regardless of if the position is pro, neutral, or anti AI, if it is defended with irrationality, they will be the ones in this analogy. I equivalently denounce people that have no respect for artists and see AI as a way to kill the creative industry as I denounce people that pretend nothing good can ever come from AI and everyone that uses it is without a conscience or has no feeling for creativity.
As for your points about fighting it, I cannot find any point in it that I agree with. Three or four years ago I would have entertained the notion that it might go away, but it has been showing up all over society. It’s an unattainable goal. Even if it somehow got banned in one country, that does not stop other countries around the world, with different cultures and values from using it, nor stop bad actors from using it so long as it cannot be proven to be AI. It’s like thinking because drugs are illegal, nobody is doing drugs. And to drive that point even further, positive uses such as certain drugs ending up being used for effective treatment of PTSD or chronic pain, end up being undiscovered. That’s the kind of world irrational reasoning builds.
And by having an opinion that can only be satisfied by someone unequivocally agreeing with you, with no room for reasonable disagreeing on some aspects such as fair usage, it makes alliances that could actually get majorities to secure rights and fair treatment impossible.
See, this is the kind of statement I do denounce if you are saying this applies to AI, and why I don’t really believe you are in a community that reasonably discusses AI. It’s such a close minded statement that is only applicable to most big companies that use AI. It doesn’t respect artists that use it whose work has been systematically undervalued, nor researchers that use it for the common good, nor any other use that has a reasonable grounds to not be considered the same.