this post was submitted on 08 May 2026
739 points (96.7% liked)
Privacy
48499 readers
755 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sure, because it would be tainted by another individual with goals and intentions different from my own. Being upset that something was made using a particular tool is quite different from that. Also, do you get upset looking at a beautiful sunset just because no human designed it intentionally?
I was taking the statement about what you found "fascinating" in isolation because it was phrased as such. You were surprised that the other commenter could find enjoyment in "something" not knowing how it was produced then feel less enjoyment after learning more. That is a silly thing to be "fascinated" by because it is something that the vast majority of us are keenly familiar with. But because that commenter has qualms about AI which you don't, you suddenly can't understand how later information about something can alter one's enjoyment of it? It's an absurd thing to say. As is your sunset question. I don't get upset looking at most AI slop either, but I absolutely do place it in a different category than either a natural phenomenon or something I know was made by human expression and if you can't understand or recognize that difference, I don't know that anything I could say could help you with that.
Last I checked, LLMs have no will or agency of their own. Literally everything they produce is an artifact of a human expressing themselves. The argument is regarding how much effort a human is expected to put in and what tools they use to express themselves. Apparently, when a certain arbitrary threshold is reached, then it's no longer human responsible for producing something.
Yeah I guess it was human expression that confidently insisted superglue was a safe ingredient to put on my pizza to hold the cheese on it. I don't even give much of a shit about LLM slop on the occasions it's accurate, it was your bad faith and absurd response to the other commenter that I was calling out which you ignored in order to shift the discussion to philosophical arguments about AI that make you sound like the entrepreneur genius Sam Altman or the other tech bro capitalists trying to keep that bubble from popping.
Yeah, because we didn't have stuff like flat earthers before LLMs. That's totally a new phenomena never ever observed in humans. All these arguments are bullshit, and you all know this deep down. LLMs are just a tool, it's another form of automation, there's nothing magical about these things. And people are just losing their shit over it, and it's frankly tiresome.
If intelligently designed sunsets were an option, I'd probably like those more. You raise a good point, we might just like all these "natural beauties" because we haven't anything else.
Or perhaps the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We are able to appreciate things that look interesting without them having been designed, and they can trigger emotions and ideas within our own minds that are meaningful to us. Even with human created artifacts, we do not know what the artist was thinking vast majority of the time, or what they were actually trying to convey. We interpret the work using our own thoughts and experience. So, even with the most meticulously human generated art, it is the viewer projecting their own meaning onto it.