Post B6cgZhjC2msH2gHC76 by xgranade@wandering.shop
 (DIR) More posts by xgranade@wandering.shop
 (DIR) Post #B6cgZc2pAt0pPpPmsa by xgranade@wandering.shop
       2 likes, 2 repeats
       
       There's a temptation to be "nuanced" or to hold "complex" views about AI.I ask that you please reject that temptation and recognize that full and complete abstinence from AI is a complex view that considers the tradeoffs, compromises with the relative extremes of direct action, and that comes from a comprehensive understanding of what AI is.
       
 (DIR) Post #B6cgZdWzeCjs1gXOXg by xgranade@wandering.shop
       0 likes, 1 repeats
       
       To wit, AI products such as LLMs:• Are primarily developed under eugenicist philosophies, and primarily financially benefit fascists.• Are trained on uncompensated and nonconsentual labor.• Require unconscionable and unsustainable levels of energy and water waste.• Are used to undermine labor rights, such as the power of artists to say "no" to unconscionable demands.• Necessarily consolidate and centralize power.• Present unacceptable risks due to disinformation and other errors.
       
 (DIR) Post #B6cgZexyJNugTeASES by xgranade@wandering.shop
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       That is not a simple position to hold, but precisely none of those complexities point to embracing the relatively extreme position of AI adoption, let alone AI boosterism. Nuanced and complex positions are not necessarily those that coincide with popular discourse. You are not necessarily a more careful thinker for hedging your own internal cognition towards media narratives.
       
 (DIR) Post #B6cgZgJzH17MgDTYBc by xgranade@wandering.shop
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       "Don't use AI because it's bad" is possibly not a nuanced or complex position."Don't use AI because it's bad due to this list of careful considerations" is a nuanced and complex position by construction.
       
 (DIR) Post #B6cgZhjC2msH2gHC76 by xgranade@wandering.shop
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       (I say possibly because it is often fair to summarize a nuanced and complex position in a perhaps overly simplistic way, due to the exigencies of short-form discussions. A terse view might be ill-considered, or it might be a casual summary of a complex and detailed consideration. I don't suggest holding good faith or grace about that ambiguity, given how many bad faith actors try to fuck up AI discourse, but I only suggest that *if* someone acts in good faith, they may be summarizing.)
       
 (DIR) Post #B6cgZjBachBPZ2ZO0u by xgranade@wandering.shop
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       (Similarly, I might well be criticized for discussing things in relatively idealistic terms, and ignoring how one might be *coerced* into using or promoting AI. I will defend my discussion on idealistic terms, as "AI is bad, don't use it because of this list of reasons" is already a nuanced and complex statement about what one should ideally do. Adding the other layer of constrained choices under capitalistic coercion is another necessary complexity, but a separate and complementary discussion.)
       
 (DIR) Post #B6hOfRY8l7QeaAF9g8 by domo@pizza.enby.city
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @xgranade exactly! None of this "I'm an AI skeptic" or "AI optimist" nonsense. Commit to full rejection. Don't take the AI industry's linkedin bait.