Everyone I've talked to that tries to defend generative AI doesn't do it from a point of intellectual honesty. They'd be like "don't be anti-tech if we don't have technology everyone will still be farmers!" instead of acknowledging the wave of media slop, disinformation campaigns, and environment destruction. They'd defend lead in gasoline or asbestos back in the days because it is new tech.
Nowadays, knowing how to grow free food is infinitely more preferable than starving and living in generational debt, so them saying that like it's some kind of own is lowkey insane.
Nowadays, knowing how to grow free food is infinitely more preferable than starving and living in generational debt, so them saying that like it's some kind of own is lowkey insane.
Growing food actually costs a lot. Modern day farmers outside of megafarms barely break even most of the time because the cost of fertilizer inputs, seeds, equipment, etc. If we're talking about subsistence farming, yes of course that's mostly free outside of labor, but you're not going to be making much if any food surplus from it, if you have a bad harvest one year you're very likely to starve and you don't have the amenities of being connected to the grid like being able to shitpost in anime art database comments.
Being a farmer has never been a good job. Even now either you own your own land and are at constant risk of losing it because you don't make any money, or you're grinding for someone else and you're still a wagie in a cagie (and will probably be replaced by an undocumented immigrant who the owner can pay less and deport if they complain). It is not preferable and if you're living a service job or office job you actually have it quite easy in comparison contrary to whatever idealized idyllic image of working on the land you might have.
wholesomeyurienjoyer said in comment #2616679: instead of acknowledging the wave of media slop, disinformation campaigns, and environment destruction
Let's make this less of a straw man: I will absolutely acknowledge the slob, though that slob can be fun to mess around with. And as for environmental destruction, I will acknowledge the increased demand for those rare earths you hear so much about and water use, and that these things cause pollution. But I don't think the man-caused climate change narrative has been honest science. And the disinformation campaigns - propaganda - were there long before and it was far more difficult to question before technologies such as books and internet. Depending on how you use AI it seems like a good tool against it: Use AI from different presumed biases, check the sources and compare with other people, right? And for less politically invested topics it seems even better. Of course, that's depending on using AI properly. Now, after consulting an AI, I'll also acknowledge that if the legwork isn't done, AI generated falsehoods might make people more skeptical of everything they see and hear, and so it may in effect simply reinforce tribal beliefs because people retreat to that. But this is a case of AI having challenged my previous position, from which we can further discuss, making this point somewhat ironic.
Whether there are negative effects from AI is not a question. The real question to ask is whether AI is more useful than it's harmful. I personally find it to be a very useful learning tool (to supplement other tools). On the whole I think it's too soon to make an evaluation, but if I had to based on things right now, I'd rather have it just for how useful it is and because the negatives don't seem to have affected me much. You can make the same allegations against books, and I'd make the same conclusion based on similar reasoning.
But I don't think the man-caused climate change narrative has been honest science.
I was going to respectfully reply until you start doubting human-caused climate change. Sigh. Its always people you most expect that defends AI.
Not gonna keep replying on this art because its not going anywhere, especially since with genAI everybody thinks they are winning an argument. "ChatGPT, generate me 7 reasons why climate change is not real so I can win this online argument despite almost every reputable scientist saying otherwise". Lets just enjoy art.
wholesomeyurienjoyer said in comment #2616752: Its always people you most expect that defends AI.
What does that mean and does it amount to anything more than the usual ad hominem thinking?
Not gonna keep replying on this art because its not going anywhere,
They say technology has created echo chambers, but it seems very much voluntary.
especially since with genAI everybody thinks they are winning an argument.
Straw manning, and right after I had used AI to challenge my own assumptions.
"ChatGPT, generate me 7 reasons why climate change is not real
Putting words in my mouth. I specifically never said climate change wasn't real.
Lets just enjoy art.
First you talk trash about everyone not opposed to AI, and then when you get a little pushback you run away refusing to engage, and then have the temerity to end it with an appeal to keep it focused on the art on this site.
Leave a comment