i think the break down of trust, the perception of reality and destruction of communities has been greatly underestimated when it comes to AI (or it was deliberate, better put my tinfoil hat back on...)

even more so when there's no way of knowing how many of those pro-AI voices are even real people

[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

The dynamic between "AI" boosters and people who don't want to use LLMs is not on level ground. "AI" boosting in a space with people who want to be "AI Sober" is disruptive and antagonistic, knowing that you're doing it is baiting or outright trolling.

This is something I've wondered about with regards to all of this, especially in the open source community. If a large enough group of people thinks a project would be better with AI and the original project is resistant to it, then presumably by the general nature of open source they should be able to just fork it, make their AI version and see which is more popular. And if AI is so much better and faster, then that should rapidly become the dominant version.

However, I don't recall that happening with any projects I've heard of, and I don't really hear about much forking going on. I'm sure it's happened somewhere, but to me it seems like the vast majority of stories I hear are about existing projects suddenly being deluged with AI until they get overwhelmed, and then descending into flame wars when they try to do something about it.

[–] Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip 15 points 2 weeks ago

That was a very good read, thank you for sharing it

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 10 points 2 weeks ago

Seconding Cris, that was a fantastic read.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago

The burden of proof from this angle unfairly rested on an "accuser", not "the accused". This mirrors many justice systems, but a PR being rejected is not equivalent to imprisonment or a fine or death. It's a mild social consequence, equivalent to saying "no thanks" to someone handing out flyers for a show at the Edinburgh fringe or leaflets of strange local religious sect.

Wow. The sheer gall.

[+] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works -13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I found this article way too biased. For example:

Nobody intentionally buys "AI assets" from online marketplaces. Nobody asks "AI artists" for commissions or collaboration. The people who follow "AI art" accounts are... "AI" boosters, for the most part. Some people who are caught up in the spectacle. "AI" works on steam instantly receive backlash, and are seeing an increasing amount of backlash over time.

This person is living in a bubble. There is a sizable part of the population that simple doesn't care about the anti-AI sentiment and just loves AI content.

The dynamic between "AI" boosters and people who don't want to use LLMs is not on level ground. "AI" boosting in a space with people who want to be "AI Sober" is disruptive and antagonistic, knowing that you're doing it is baiting or outright trolling.

From what I've seen, both sides are just as toxic to the other. It's just a divisive topic. Acting like anti-AI people are "victims" is biased framing.

[–] bad1080@piefed.social 10 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

and people not caring about art theft and the destruction of the environment should be the arbiter here?

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well that ain't what they said is it.

[–] bad1080@piefed.social 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

then what did they say other than "lots of people don't care" and "both sides"?

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 6 points 2 weeks ago

This is the bit of your first comment that was not in their comment:

should be the arbiter

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 3 points 2 weeks ago

The root cause on both of those is just capitalism. If it wasn't LLMs it would be something else.

So I blame capitalism, not an advanced predictive text engine.