this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
427 points (86.6% liked)

Fuck AI

3749 readers
446 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Source (Bluesky)

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kartoffelsaft@programming.dev 112 points 1 week ago (12 children)

I believe AI is going to be a net negative to society for the forseeable future. AI art is a blight on artistry as a concept, and LLMs are shunting us further into search-engine-overfit post-truth world.

But also:

Reading the OOP has made me a little angry. You can see the echo chamber forming right before your eyes. Either you see things the way OOP does with no nuance, or you stop following them and are left following AI hype-bros who'll accept you instead. It's disgustingly twitter-brained. It's a bullshit purity test that only serves your comfort over actually trying to convince anyone of anything.

Consider someone who has had some small but valued usage of AI (as a reverse dictionary, for example), but generally considers things like energy usage and intellectual property rights to be serious issues we have to face for AI to truly be a net good. What does that person hear when they read this post? "That time you used ChatGPT to recall the word 'verisimilar' makes you an evil person." is what they hear. And at that moment you've cut that person off from ever actually considering your opinion ever again. Even if you're right that's not healthy.

[–] BigDiction@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

I’m a what most people would consider an AI Luddite/hater and think OOP communicates like a dogmatic asshole.

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago (4 children)

You can also be right for the wrong reasons. You see that a lot in the anti-AI echo chambers, people who never gave a shit about IP law suddenly pretending that they care about copyright, the whole water use thing which is closer to myth than fact, or discussions on energy usage in general.

Everyone can pick up on the vibes being off with the mainstream discourse around AI, but many can't properly articulate why and they solve that cognitive dissonance with made-up or comforting bullshit.

This makes me quite uncomfortable because that's the exact same pattern of behavior we see from reactionaries, except that what weirds them out for reasons they can't or won't say explicitly isn't tech bros but immigrants and queer people.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] kopasz7@sh.itjust.works 85 points 1 week ago (2 children)

My issues are fundsmentally two fold with gen AI:

  1. Who owns and controls it (billionares and entrenched corporations)

  2. How it is shoehorned into everything (decision making processes, human-to-human communication, my coffee machine)

I cannot wait until finally the check is due and the AI bubble pops; folding this digital snake oil sellers' house of cards.

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

When generative AI was first taking off, I saw it as something that could empower regular people to do things that they otherwise could not afford to. The problem, as is always the case, is capitalism immediately turned into a tool of theft and abuse. The theft of training data, the power requirements, selling it for profit, competing against those whose creations were used for training without permission or attribution, the unreliability and untrustworthiness, so many ethical and technical problems.

I still don’t have a problem with using the corpus of all human knowledge for machine learning, in theory, but we’ve ended up heading in a horrible, dystopian direction that will have no good outcomes. As we hurtle toward corporate controlled AGI with no ethical or regulatory guardrails, we are racing toward a scenario where we will be slavers or extinct, and possibly both.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago (38 children)

You really take no issue with how they were all trained?

load more comments (38 replies)
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 49 points 1 week ago (32 children)

Are people expected not to follow anyone they disagree with?

[–] De_Narm@lemmy.world 41 points 1 week ago

Reading other opinions? On my echo chamber platform of choice?! /s

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Follow to expose yourself to different perspectives? Sure.

But it sounds like the users in question are following with the intent to reply “you’re wrong” to everything the OP puts out.

Which… I do, sadly, expect. But I wouldn’t wish for it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (30 replies)
[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago (16 children)

I work at a company that uses AI to detect repirstory ilnesses in xrays and MRI scans weeks or mobths before a human doctor could.

This work has already saved thousands of peoples lives.

But good to know you anti-AI people have your 1 dimensional, 0 nuance take on the subject and are now doing moral purity tests on it and dick measuring to see who has the loudest, most extreme hatred for AI.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

Nobody has a problem with this, it's generative AI that's demonic

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

Generative AI is a meaningless buzzword for the same underlying technology, as I kinda ranted on below.

Corporate enshittification is what's demonic. When you say fuck AI, you should really mean "fuck Sam Altman"

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I mean, not really? Maybe they're both deep learning neural architectures, but one has been trained on an entire internetful of stolen creative content and the other has been trained on ethically sourced medical data. That's a pretty significant difference.

[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 13 points 1 week ago (3 children)

No, really. Deep learning and transformers etc. was discoveries that allowed for all of the above, just because corporate vc shitheads drag their musty balls in the latest boom abusing the piss out of it and making it uncool, does not mean the technology is a useless scam

[–] ILikeTraaaains@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

This.

I recently attended a congress about technology applied on healthcare.

There were works that improved diagnosis and interventions with AI, generative mainly used for synthetic data for training.

However there were also other works that left a bad aftertaste in my mouth, like replacing human interaction between the patient and a specialist with a chatbot in charge of explaining the procedure and answering questions to the patient. Some saw privacy laws as a hindrance and wanted to use any kind of private data.

Both GenAI, one that improves lives and other that improves profits.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] HalfSalesman@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Generative AI uses the same technology. It learns when trained on a large data set.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

All this is being stoked by OpenAI, Anthropic and such.

They want the issue to be polarized and remove any nuance, so it’s simple: use their corporate APIs, or not. Anything else is ”dangerous.”

For what they’re really scared of is awareness of locally runnable, ethical, and independent task specific tools like yours. That doesn’t make them any money. Stirring up “fuck AI” does, because that’s a battle they know they can win.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Limonene@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (12 children)

Generative AI and their outputs are derived products of their training data. I mean this ethically, not legally; I'm not a copyright lawyer.

Using the output for personal viewing (advice, science questions, or jacking off to AI porn you requested) is weird but ethical. It's equivalent to pirating a movie to watch at home.

But as soon as you show someone else the output, I consider it theft without attribution. If you generate a meme image, you're failing to attribute the artists whose work trained the AI without permission. If you generate code, that code infringes the numerous open source licenses of the training data, by failing to attribute it.

Even a simple lemmy text post generated by AI is derived from thousands of unattributed novels.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Atlas_@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Do y'all hate chess engines?

If yes, cool.

If no, I think you hate tech companies more than you hate AI specifically.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (8 children)

The post is pretty clearly* about genAI, I think you're just choosing to ignore that part. There's plenty of really awesome machine learning technology that helps with disabilities, doesn't rip off artists and isn't environmentally deleterious.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (10 children)

Yup, as always, none of these problems are inherent to AI itself, they're all problems with capitalism.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheGuyTM3@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I'm just sick of all this because we gave to "AI" too much meaning.

I don't like Generative AI tools like LLMs, image generators, voice, video etc because i see no interests in that, I think they give bad habits, and they are not understood well by their users.

Yesterday again i had to correct my mother because she told me some fun fact she had learnt by chatGPT, (that was wrong), and she refused to listen to me because "ChatGPT do plenty of researches on the net so it should know better than you".

About the thing that "it will replace artists and destroy art industry", I don't believe in that, (even if i made the choice to never use it), because it will forever be a tool. It's practical if you want a cartoony monkey image for your article (you meanie stupid journalist) but you can't say "make me a piece of art" and then put it on a museum.

Making art myself, i hate Gen AI slop from the deep of my heart but i'm obligated to admit that. (Let's not forget how it trains on copirighted media, use shitton of energy, and give no credits)

AI in others fields, like medecine, automatic subtitles, engineering, is fine for me. It won't give bad habits, it is well understood by its users, and it is truly benefical, as in being more efficient to save lifes than humans, or simply being helpful to disabled people.

TL,DR AI in general is a tool. Gen AI is bad as a powerful tool for everyone's use like it is bad to give to everyone an helicopter (even if it improves mobility). AI is nonetheless a very nice tool that can save lifes and help disabled peoples IF used and understood correctly and fairly.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 17 points 1 week ago

First of all, intellectual property rights do not protect the author. I'm the author of a few papers and a book and I do not have intellectual property rights on any of these - like most of the authors I had to give them to the publishing house.

Secondly, your personal carbon footprint is bullshit.

Thirdly, everyone in the picture is an asshole.

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

the fact that it is theft

There are LLMs trained using fully open datasets that do not contain proprietary material... (CommonCorpus dataset, OLMo)

the fact that it is environmentally harmful

There are LLMs trained with minimal power (typically the same ones as above as these projects cannot afford as much resources), and local LLMs use signiciantly less power than a toaster or microwave...

the fact that it cuts back on critical, active thought

This is a usecase problem. LLMs aren't suitable for critical thinking or decision making tasks, so if it's cutting back on your "critical, active thought" you're just using it wrong anyway...

The OOP genuinely doesn't know what they're talking about and are just reacting to sensationalized rage bait on the internet lmao

[–] csh83669@programming.dev 16 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Saying it uses less power that a toaster is not much. Yes, it uses less power than a thing that literally turns electricity into pure heat… but that’s sort of a requirement for toast. That’s still a LOT of electricity. And it’s not required. People don’t need to burn down a rainforest to summarize a meeting. Just use your earballs.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] hpx9140@fedia.io 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're implying the edge cases you presented are the majority being used?

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

No, and that's irrelevant. Their post is explicitly not about the majority, but about exceptions/edge cases.

I am responding to what they posted (I even quoted them), showing that the position that "there is no ethical use for generative AI" and that there are no exceptions is provably false.

I didn't think it needed to be said because it's not relevant to this discussion, but: the majority of AI sucks on all fronts. It's bad for intellectual property, it's bad for the environment, it's bad for privacy, it's bad for people's brains, and it's bad at what it's used for.

All of these problems are not inherent to AI itself, and instead are problems with the massive short-term-profit-seeking corporations flush with unimaginable amounts of investor cash (read: unimaginable expectations and promises that they can't meet) that control the majority of AI. Once again capitalism is the real culprit, and fools like the OOP will do these strawman mental gymnastics and spread misinformation to defend capitalism at all costs.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I do use AI (mostly like Google), but I don't think it's justified or OK, lol - I'm the problem, and I know it.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ruuster13@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 week ago

AI is a marketing term. Big Tech stole ALL data. All of it. The brazen piracy is a sign they feel untouchable. We should touch them.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

It’s so surreal when someone posts a meme about That Guy™ doing That Thing™ and then all of a sudden That Guy™ shows up in the comments, doing That Thing™

Like, can I get your autograph? You’re famous, bro!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago

I sure am glad that we learned our lesson from the marketing campaigns in the 90's that pushed consumers to recycle their plastic single-use products to deflect attention away from the harm caused by their ubiquitous use in manufacturing.

Fuck those AI users for screwing over small creators and burning down the planet though. I see no problem with this framing.

[–] khaleer@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I would not to get close to bike repaired by someone who is using ai to do it. Like what the fuck xd I am not surprised he is unable to make code work then xddd

[–] axEl7fB5@lemmy.cafe 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Do people who self-host count? Like ollama? It's not like my PC is going to drain a lake.

[–] Auth@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

To that person, yeah self hosting still counts.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

I like to read the anti ai stuff, because ultimativly a lot of criticism is valid. But by god is there a lot of adolescent whining and hyperbole.

load more comments
view more: next ›