Re: https://social.coop/users/scottjenson/statuses/116352800579635299
Uncategorized
3
Posts
2
Posters
0
Views
-
Re: https://social.coop/users/scottjenson/statuses/116352800579635299
Yes, a lot of you don't want AI posts in your feed (or pick any other topic) but the solution isn't to keep "AI People" from joining Mastodon
If this were not a disingenuous strawman---because it's impossible for one thing---I'd ask "why not?" I wouldn't invite the "AI People" I've encountered into my house either, because I've found them to be unpleasant and I get to choose who enters my space. This solution has worked quite well for me over the years.
It seems to me that what this person is saying is that people should give up the power they have---namely, their power to exclude people and topics they don't wish to interact with---because it favors them. That's a typical rhetorical move of AI boosters: demanding you give up your power because you having and exercising that power inconveniences them.any more than it is keeping marginalized communities off of Mastodon.
One should ask why this person chose to use the most offensive possible metaphor to make their case for inclusion. It's almost as though they don't believe the argument their words are shaped into resembling.
#AI #GenAI #GenerativeAI #AIHype #AIBoosters
-
Re: https://social.coop/users/scottjenson/statuses/116352800579635299
Yes, a lot of you don't want AI posts in your feed (or pick any other topic) but the solution isn't to keep "AI People" from joining Mastodon
If this were not a disingenuous strawman---because it's impossible for one thing---I'd ask "why not?" I wouldn't invite the "AI People" I've encountered into my house either, because I've found them to be unpleasant and I get to choose who enters my space. This solution has worked quite well for me over the years.
It seems to me that what this person is saying is that people should give up the power they have---namely, their power to exclude people and topics they don't wish to interact with---because it favors them. That's a typical rhetorical move of AI boosters: demanding you give up your power because you having and exercising that power inconveniences them.any more than it is keeping marginalized communities off of Mastodon.
One should ask why this person chose to use the most offensive possible metaphor to make their case for inclusion. It's almost as though they don't believe the argument their words are shaped into resembling.
#AI #GenAI #GenerativeAI #AIHype #AIBoosters@abucci
>>Yes, a lot of you don't want AI posts in your feed (or pick any other topic) but the solution isn't to keep "AI People" from joining Mastodon
>If this were not a disingenuous strawman---because it's impossible for one thing---I'd ask "why not?" I wouldn't invite the "AI People" I've encountered into my house either, because I've found them to be unpleasant and I get to choose who enters my space.
In the before times (5+ years ago), very few cared who was joining the network. (Notice the "network", this place isn't Mastodon and never was.) When someone joined, it was seen as a good thing no matter who that was, because it made the network larger, the decentralization was spreading. But in the last 5 years, the goals seemingly shifted. Suddenly more people on here turned to a bad thing, a decentralized network meant to allow anyone to have a voice turned into a fractured space of gatekept echo-chambers with very little bridges between them. Some might say that is the result of not gatekeeping the today's gatekeepers, but I don't really care and still mostly have the old mindset in my mind. It is more of a reflection on how humanity changed.
>It seems to me that what this person is saying is that people should give up the power they have---namely, excluding people and topics they don't wish to interact with---because it favors them.
Nobody has "power" here, nobody can give up their "power". You have no power over me and neither do I over you. This is the nature of the network and it's been built for this purpose. The only power you have here is the control over what you see on your timeline (with some minor exceptions like instance-level moderation). That's it. You cannot exclude people from the network no matter what you try, trying so is task with no end.
>One should ask why this person chose to use the most offensive possible metaphor to make their case for inclusion. It's almost as though they don't believe the argument their words are shaped into resembling.
Actually not at all. The whole point is that gatekeeping anyone away, and excluding anyone from this network is equivalent for both cases, marginalized groups and "AI people". And that it isn't healthy. -
@abucci
>>Yes, a lot of you don't want AI posts in your feed (or pick any other topic) but the solution isn't to keep "AI People" from joining Mastodon
>If this were not a disingenuous strawman---because it's impossible for one thing---I'd ask "why not?" I wouldn't invite the "AI People" I've encountered into my house either, because I've found them to be unpleasant and I get to choose who enters my space.
In the before times (5+ years ago), very few cared who was joining the network. (Notice the "network", this place isn't Mastodon and never was.) When someone joined, it was seen as a good thing no matter who that was, because it made the network larger, the decentralization was spreading. But in the last 5 years, the goals seemingly shifted. Suddenly more people on here turned to a bad thing, a decentralized network meant to allow anyone to have a voice turned into a fractured space of gatekept echo-chambers with very little bridges between them. Some might say that is the result of not gatekeeping the today's gatekeepers, but I don't really care and still mostly have the old mindset in my mind. It is more of a reflection on how humanity changed.
>It seems to me that what this person is saying is that people should give up the power they have---namely, excluding people and topics they don't wish to interact with---because it favors them.
Nobody has "power" here, nobody can give up their "power". You have no power over me and neither do I over you. This is the nature of the network and it's been built for this purpose. The only power you have here is the control over what you see on your timeline (with some minor exceptions like instance-level moderation). That's it. You cannot exclude people from the network no matter what you try, trying so is task with no end.
>One should ask why this person chose to use the most offensive possible metaphor to make their case for inclusion. It's almost as though they don't believe the argument their words are shaped into resembling.
Actually not at all. The whole point is that gatekeeping anyone away, and excluding anyone from this network is equivalent for both cases, marginalized groups and "AI people". And that it isn't healthy.@phnt@fluffytail.orgIn the before times (5+ years ago), very few cared who was joining the network. (Notice the "network", this place isn't Mastodon and never was.) When someone joined, it was seen as a good thing no matter who that was, because it made the network larger, the decentralization was spreading. But in the last 5 years, the goals seemingly shifted. Suddenly more people on here turned to a bad thing, a decentralized network meant to allow anyone to have a voice turned into a fractured space of gatekept echo-chambers with very little bridges between them. Some might say, that is the result of not gatekeeping the today's gatekeepers, but I don't really care and still mostly have the old mindset in my mind. It is more of a reflection on how humanity changed.
I've been using "the network" since the days of USENET, 1990 onward, and I can attest that, at least in my experience, none of this rings true even a little.
Even so, the discourse I'm responding to is about Mastodon, not about some nebulous or idealized "network". Goalpost shifting is not constructive.Nobody has "power" here
Of course we do. I have the power to block whoever I want and whichever hashtags I want, for instance. I also have the power to restrict who registers an account on my fediverse instance. You are not permitted to join my instance, and in that sense I very much have power over you: I am able to restrict your liberty. You may not want an account and I don't blame you, but that doesn't change the equation.
I said nothing about excluding people from the network. I literally said "excluding people and topics they don't wish to interact with". You seem to be arguing against something that wasn't said, which is not constructive.
Oh, and if anyone cares, my little gatekept and bridgeless corner of the fediverse is quite lovely, thanks, and grand proclamations about fractured spaces or whatnot have no bearing whatsover on this simple reality.excluding anyone from this network is equivalent for both cases, marginalized groups and "AI people".
These are obviously not equivalent in any sense that matters. You might as well include "people who love putting topsoil on their pizza" as a marginalized group because someone said "eww" once. Superficial associations like this sound disingenuous to my ears, and in any case are not constructive.And that it isn't healthy.
Why would excluding "AI people" in particular be unhealthy? What exactly are the ill effects?
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
