mke

yea this attitude right here is why ai bros are so beloved

Anubis does its thing, shows me cute art, then leaves without elaborating. It's a mostly non-intrusive, individual/community effort to protect people against big tech and abusive scrapers. I usually see it in open source community websites that were getting hammered by LLM scrapers.

Cloudflare's is a corporate solution from the company that man-in-the-middles half the internet and makes me click shit every fucking time. I see it whenever I make the mistake of following a stackoverflow link.

You're goddamn right my reaction is accordingly different.

I think most popular online social spaces—here included—are unconducive to the kind of long-term, active effort conversations between individuals that might change someone's mind. Instead, we gather as many as we can and just start shouting.

Shout it loudly into every medium and hope your fiefdom's propaganda, however meager, pulls in some people over time. It's all about that noise, because noise means engagement, and engagement is the de facto cost-effective tool in social media. Honest conversations are high-cost, dubious reward. They're tiring. Jading. Hardly worth it. So, broadcasting ideas it is.

It's fundamentally the same method the ruling class has used, and continues effectively using, to influence the world in any scale that actually matters, except they reach hundreds of millions every day while we dozen thousand few shout at each other in a dark alley.

Regarding online behavior, you might consider that Lemmy has largely failed to fix it. I posit that it barely ever tried, but also that it's an extremely difficult problem because the root cause is us.

Yeah, the more people say something, the less true it becomes. Good facts die inside an individual mind without ever being shared.

It's not just that. If it was, I'd have been convinced by the new-era freedom fighters using fucking ai horde, or whatever sloppers call their latest open-source [citation needed] model instance.

The biggest issue is the shameless, continuous abuse of creative workers by sucking up all their works without consent.

What is your point? Lemmy is full of Trump criticism. It's the norm. One thread shitting on Hillary won't change that.

GenAI advocates would rather get rid of IP altogether, though. They claim they're all running ethical models already and it's perfect, but they also want artists' right to opt-out to not exist. Nevermind compensation, or the need for opt-in, we can't even agree on the importance of consent.

I'm sure those free services run on pure hopes and dreams and will do so forever.

There's someone close to me whose near entire existence is basically pain. They still draw.

They hate the idea that their works got sucked by billionaires into giant plagiarism machines that are enriching them further. Pro AI people and tech bros think they should just suck it up and start using fucking AI horde or something, despite the fact that this trend makes them sick and the proposed solutions don't tackle real issues, but spread or ignore them.

One of my main gripes with GenAI is the tech industry's usual disregard for consent. GenAI users saying we should get rid of it altogether doesn't endear their ideal future to me. Saying the same thing as Sam Altman, but totally in a leftist way, just grosses me out.

Turning it against itself my ass. This is promoting it. Legitimizing it. Normalizing its presence everywhere. Doing exactly what they want.

They're on a niche forum sharing convoluted AI slop, harming that which they claim to stand for. These aren't freedom fighters subverting the system, they're clowns.

I've heard that many men do this because they've realized, in some capacity, that outright admitting they're right-wing limits their opportunities. In my circles, I've noticed this "I'm actually a centrist/apolitical" trend is also found among popular developers and tech influencers.

Saying you're anti-woke gets you shunned and surrounded by horrible people, but saying you're just apolitical gets you the blessing and protection of self-proclaimed centrists. When you, for example, marginalize LGBT folks and get called out, countless will gather to complain about people "dragging politics into tech." Bryan Lunduke will come out of his cave and write a piece about how the trans fetish is trying to kill open source.

Thank you for acknowledging that. And you may be right about blocking.

I just think it's difficult for folks, me included, to merely hide what they consider to be an issue. They're not comparable, but if I saw a self-proclaimed leftist community sharing anti-union propaganda, I'd rather discuss it. I'm not claiming that's the healthiest mindset or the correct one, but I don't think it's entirely without reason.

These situations, wherein a group broadcasts an idea to everybody, then silences dissent because it's "their turf, their rules," never seemed fair. Shields like "they're trolling", "neoliberals", "bots" and "brigading" intensify the issue—some mod comments read like a mirror of r/conservative. Why does the blame lie solely with one side, when the subject is controversial and sharing it with everyone was also a deliberate choice?

There was talk of an option, for communities, to self-exclude from "all" feeds. Wonder if such features could be a better solution, here. I'll refrain from talking AI and ethics in db0 in the future, but I feel like they should do better, themselves.