3d ago

The Perfect Response

https://xcancel.com/EddCoates#m

266 comments

The more I see dishonest, blindly reactionary rhetoric from anti-AI people - especially when that rhetoric is identical to classic RIAA brainrot - the more I warm up to (some) AI.
- Yes, I like the unethical thing... but it's the fault of people who are against it. You see, I thought they were annoying, and that justifies anything the other side does, really.
  In my new podcast, I explain how I used this same approach to reimagine my stance on LGBT rights. You see, a person with the trans flag was mean to me on twitter, so I voted for—
  
  Wow, using a marginalized group who are actively being persecuted as your mouthpiece, in a way that doesn't make sense as an analogy. Attacking LGBTQI+ rights is unethical, period. Where your analogy falls apart is in categorically rejecting a broad suite of technologies as "unethical" even as plenty of people show plenty of examples of when that's not the case. It's like when people point to studies showing that sugar can sometimes be harmful and then saying, "See! Carbs are all bad!"
  So thank you for exemplifying exactly the kind of dishonesty I'm talking about.
  
  My comment is too short to fit the required nuance, but my point is clear, and it's not that absurd false dichotomy. You said you're warming up to some AI because of how some people criticize it. That shouldn't be how a reasonable person decides whether something is OK or not. I just provided an example of how that doesn't work.
  If you want to talk about marginalized groups, I'm open to discussing how GenAI promotion and usage is massively harming creative workers worldwide—the work of which is often already considered lesser than that of their STEM peers—many of whom are part of that very marginalized group you're defending.
  Obviously not all AI, nor all GenAI, are bad. That said, current trends for GenAI are harmful, and if you promote them as they are, without accountability, or needlessly attack people trying to resist them and protect the victims, you're not making things better.
  I know that broken arguments of people who don't understand all the details of the tech can get tiring. But at this stage, I'll take someone who doesn't entirely understand how AI works but wants to help protect people over someone who only cares about technology marching onwards, the people it's hurting be dammed.
  Hurt, desperate people lash out, sometimes wrongly. I think a more respectable attitude here would be helping steer their efforts, rather than diminishing them and attacking their integrity because you don't like how they talk.
- It is in fact the opposite of reactionary to not uncritically embrace your energy guzzling, disinformation spreading, proft-driven "AI".
  As much as you don't care about language, it actually means something and you should take some time to look inwards, as you will notice who is the reactionary in this scenario.
  
  "Disinformation spreading" is irrelevant in this discussion. LLM's are a whole separate conversation. This is about image generators. And on that topic, you position the tech as "energy guzzling" when that's not necessarily always the case, as people often show; and profit-driven, except what about the cases where it's being used to contribute to the free information commons?
  And lastly you're leaving out the ableism in being blindly anti-AI. People with artistic skills are still at an advantage over people who either lack them, are too poor to hire skilled artists, and/or are literally disabled whether physically or cognitively. The fact is AI is allowing more people than ever to bring their ideas into reality, where otherwise they would have never been able to.
  
  Listen, if you want to argue for facilitating image creation for people who aren't skilled artists, I—and many more people—are willing to listen. But this change cannot be built on top of the exploitation of worldwide artists. That's beyond disrespectful, it's outright cruel.
  I could talk about the other points you're making, but if you were to remember one single thing from this conversation, please let it be this: supporting the AI trend as it is right now is hurting people. Talk to artists, to writers, even many programmers.
  We can still build the tech ethically when the bubble pops, when we all get a moment to breathe, and talk about how to do it right, without Sam Altman and his million greedy investors trying to drive the zeitgeist for the benefit of their stocks, at the cost of real people.
  
  There are literally image generation tools that are open-source. Even Krita has a plugin available. There are multiple datasets that can be trained on, other than the one that flagrantly infringed everyone's copyrights, and there is no shortage of instructions online for how people can put together their own datasets for training. All of this can be run offline.
  So no, anyone has everything they need to do this right, right now if they want to. Getting hysterical about it, and dishonestly claiming that it all "steals" from artists helps no one.
- I'm sorry you're not creative.
  
  I'm certainly creative enough not to resort to childish ad hominems immediately.
  
  Nah, you do so in the second comment here, like a properly lady. I can't believe his lack of decorum. Is your sensitive soul ok?
- Astroturfing. I don't believe you.
  
  Astroturfing? That implies I'm getting paid or compensated in any way, which I'm not. Does your commenting have anything to do with anything?
  
  Astroturf is fake grass. Are you positive that guy in the picture is being paid? He might just be a proud boy.
  
  Oh, I have no idea who anyone in the photo is. I'm just tired of all the dishonesty coming from both extremes around AI stuff.
  
  I am a liar?
- You won't be the only one😉

266 comments