Can the AI haters give it a rest already?
-
@quanin I'm not seeing that. The OP told AI haters to give it a rest because of minor benefits disabled people experience. I think we can both agree that I come under what the OP would class as an "AI hater". Therefore the conversation was absolutely relevant to me and I felt it important to point out that its not personal against the users, nor is it a blanket hate, from me anyway, of all things AI, mearly the current implementation thereof.
@JustinMac84 Right now, you sound like an AI hater. Particularly because you literally came into a thread where the AI haters were being asked to knock it off because this literally comes up in every conversation, and you're basically saying no. For the record, because you apparently won't let this go unless I explicitly say it, I agree with you. And in general AI is making most people lazier, even if you remove all of those other concerns. We still don't need to hear about it in every single AI conversation. That's the broken record.
-
@quanin I'm not seeing that. The OP told AI haters to give it a rest because of minor benefits disabled people experience. I think we can both agree that I come under what the OP would class as an "AI hater". Therefore the conversation was absolutely relevant to me and I felt it important to point out that its not personal against the users, nor is it a blanket hate, from me anyway, of all things AI, mearly the current implementation thereof.
@quanin It's interesting that you mention the social media debate because the same companies pushing AI so hard are currently on trial because of their implementation of social media, i.e. that they make it addictive, cognitively harmful, and have been aware of the mental health risks it poses. Australia's recently banned it for children, the UK wants to do likewise. I think social media and AI fears contextualise and relate to one another.
-
@JustinMac84 Right now, you sound like an AI hater. Particularly because you literally came into a thread where the AI haters were being asked to knock it off because this literally comes up in every conversation, and you're basically saying no. For the record, because you apparently won't let this go unless I explicitly say it, I agree with you. And in general AI is making most people lazier, even if you remove all of those other concerns. We still don't need to hear about it in every single AI conversation. That's the broken record.
@quanin I'm sorry it comes off that way. I came into the thread with the specific hope, along with you, of moderating the OP's position. You said it wasn't AI people were against, but the idea it should be used for everything and that it shouldn't replace people. I agreed with you on all the points of that post and wanted to add that it isn't AI as a concept I dislike, but its current implementation.
-
@quanin It's interesting that you mention the social media debate because the same companies pushing AI so hard are currently on trial because of their implementation of social media, i.e. that they make it addictive, cognitively harmful, and have been aware of the mental health risks it poses. Australia's recently banned it for children, the UK wants to do likewise. I think social media and AI fears contextualise and relate to one another.
@JustinMac84 Australia's social media ban for children has nothing to do with actually protecting the children, and neither does the UK's. What age verification laws will actually do, and there are actual studies that also prove this, is grant Meta and companies like that a virtual monopoly over the social media space, preventing smaller startups from competing with them. It's the same reason Meta's also completely onboard with repealing section 230 in the US. It's not about protecting people. It's about protecting Meta. And I'm on purpose ignoring the fact that age verification as it currently exists is also a privacy violation waiting to happen.
-
@quanin I'm sorry it comes off that way. I came into the thread with the specific hope, along with you, of moderating the OP's position. You said it wasn't AI people were against, but the idea it should be used for everything and that it shouldn't replace people. I agreed with you on all the points of that post and wanted to add that it isn't AI as a concept I dislike, but its current implementation.
@quanin I hoped to show her that it isn't the benefits she derives I hate, nor her for using them, but the costs attached to those benefits. I can derive those self same benefits, but don't think the cost is worth it. Do I hate the costs? Absolutely! Hate and oppose them! We need to address those costs with the utmost urgency. If that makes me an AI hater, so be it.
-
@JustinMac84 Australia's social media ban for children has nothing to do with actually protecting the children, and neither does the UK's. What age verification laws will actually do, and there are actual studies that also prove this, is grant Meta and companies like that a virtual monopoly over the social media space, preventing smaller startups from competing with them. It's the same reason Meta's also completely onboard with repealing section 230 in the US. It's not about protecting people. It's about protecting Meta. And I'm on purpose ignoring the fact that age verification as it currently exists is also a privacy violation waiting to happen.
@quanin Agreed on all points. I believe social media can harm children, but oppose the means being advanced to do it.
-
@quanin Agreed on all points. I believe social media can harm children, but oppose the means being advanced to do it.
@JustinMac84 Everything is harmful if done in the wrong way, including this conversation. There's a reason the expression is, "everything in moderation, including moderation". We don't need to be actively talking about the harms of that everything in every single conversation about or having to do with that everything. We know. We see the same headlines you do. It's up to the social media companies to help people use them the right way, because government won't do that without also being harmful at worst and ineffective at best. We've been trying to protect the children since COPPA. How're we doing?
-
@JustinMac84 Everything is harmful if done in the wrong way, including this conversation. There's a reason the expression is, "everything in moderation, including moderation". We don't need to be actively talking about the harms of that everything in every single conversation about or having to do with that everything. We know. We see the same headlines you do. It's up to the social media companies to help people use them the right way, because government won't do that without also being harmful at worst and ineffective at best. We've been trying to protect the children since COPPA. How're we doing?
@quanin As a parent, I'd say it's up to the parents. While I deplore social media companies building their platform to be addictive etc, I believe it is my responsibility as a father to keep my child safe. Social media can't bare the responsibility for every bad post and bad actor.
-
@quanin As a parent, I'd say it's up to the parents. While I deplore social media companies building their platform to be addictive etc, I believe it is my responsibility as a father to keep my child safe. Social media can't bare the responsibility for every bad post and bad actor.
@JustinMac84 See, that's mostly reasonable. Social media doesn't bare any of the responsibility for a bad actor, short of if that bad actor has done something that warrants their removal (as defined by the social media company's policies, not by your feelings as a parent). Because a lot of the problem is there's a lot of shit we, as a society, don't talk about. So kids end up talking about it to people on social media. Eating disorders? We don't talk about that with people. So into the local Facebook group they go. Anxiety? Not in my house. So onto TikTok they go. Your son might actually be your daughter? Not here. So onto WhatsApp they go. And the problem with saying outright "children are no longer allowed on social media" is now, they don't even have that as an option. So, they can't talk about it at home because that's not talked about here, and they can't talk about it on social media because it's illegal. And, I mean, you were a kid once too. You know damn well the best way to guarantee your kid does someting is to make doing that something as difficult as possible.
-
@JustinMac84 See, that's mostly reasonable. Social media doesn't bare any of the responsibility for a bad actor, short of if that bad actor has done something that warrants their removal (as defined by the social media company's policies, not by your feelings as a parent). Because a lot of the problem is there's a lot of shit we, as a society, don't talk about. So kids end up talking about it to people on social media. Eating disorders? We don't talk about that with people. So into the local Facebook group they go. Anxiety? Not in my house. So onto TikTok they go. Your son might actually be your daughter? Not here. So onto WhatsApp they go. And the problem with saying outright "children are no longer allowed on social media" is now, they don't even have that as an option. So, they can't talk about it at home because that's not talked about here, and they can't talk about it on social media because it's illegal. And, I mean, you were a kid once too. You know damn well the best way to guarantee your kid does someting is to make doing that something as difficult as possible.
@quanin See I think we agree more than we disagree. I was in favour of an outright under 16s social media ban. Then I listened to NPR's Consider this and a report on the NSPCC's position that the approach should be more nuanced and I agree. there are no easy answers around social media other than that platforms should stop harmful attention-grabbing methods. I am opposed to age verification and VPN clampdown to achieve any of it though.
-
@quanin See I think we agree more than we disagree. I was in favour of an outright under 16s social media ban. Then I listened to NPR's Consider this and a report on the NSPCC's position that the approach should be more nuanced and I agree. there are no easy answers around social media other than that platforms should stop harmful attention-grabbing methods. I am opposed to age verification and VPN clampdown to achieve any of it though.
@JustinMac84 And see, I think we need to take about 6 steps back in much the same way with AI. Yes, these are problems. But screaming about them being problems only results in governments coming up with solutions that are as helpful as their age verification measures - some of which, as it happens, also use AI. The only thing that I, as a user can do, to contribute to fixing the problems with AI directly is... well, never using any AI service. And at that point, the benefits I may or may not be extracting from AI are irrelevant because I want to solve those concerns. That, right there? That's how your position reads.
-
@JustinMac84 And see, I think we need to take about 6 steps back in much the same way with AI. Yes, these are problems. But screaming about them being problems only results in governments coming up with solutions that are as helpful as their age verification measures - some of which, as it happens, also use AI. The only thing that I, as a user can do, to contribute to fixing the problems with AI directly is... well, never using any AI service. And at that point, the benefits I may or may not be extracting from AI are irrelevant because I want to solve those concerns. That, right there? That's how your position reads.
@quanin I didn't understand the last of what you said. My position reads how?
-
@quanin I didn't understand the last of what you said. My position reads how?
@JustinMac84 Your position reads like this: "These concerns with AI exist, therefore, stop using AI". And we should either agree with those concerns and thus stop using AI, or justify why the benefits we're receiving outweigh those concerns. Because if you, as a user, want to directly contribute to addressing those concerns, not using AI is your only option. And at that point, any benefits you're extracting from AI do not matter.
-
@JustinMac84 Your position reads like this: "These concerns with AI exist, therefore, stop using AI". And we should either agree with those concerns and thus stop using AI, or justify why the benefits we're receiving outweigh those concerns. Because if you, as a user, want to directly contribute to addressing those concerns, not using AI is your only option. And at that point, any benefits you're extracting from AI do not matter.
@quanin I would modify from that assessment to specify AI in its current implementation and, rather than stop using, I would say don't use or use as little as possible. Rather than saying the benefits to you don't matter, I would say the benefits are outweighed by the costs, both to you personally and to society. Otherwise, I would say that's pretty accurate.
-
@quanin I would modify from that assessment to specify AI in its current implementation and, rather than stop using, I would say don't use or use as little as possible. Rather than saying the benefits to you don't matter, I would say the benefits are outweighed by the costs, both to you personally and to society. Otherwise, I would say that's pretty accurate.
@JustinMac84 "stop using" and "don't use" are basically the same thing, Justin. What you're saying is escentially, if you haven't started, don't, and if you have, stop. If you use AI, then those concerns are not a priority. That is an absolutist position, and that's what turns people off.
-
@quanin I would modify from that assessment to specify AI in its current implementation and, rather than stop using, I would say don't use or use as little as possible. Rather than saying the benefits to you don't matter, I would say the benefits are outweighed by the costs, both to you personally and to society. Otherwise, I would say that's pretty accurate.
@quanin I would also amplify that position to say that the jaenie is out of the bottle now. We're stuck with it. Personally, I wish we weren't, but, since we are, I would argue it's our responsibility, both individually at the user level and societally, to use it in as ethical, considerate and environmentally friendly way as possible.
-
@JustinMac84 "stop using" and "don't use" are basically the same thing, Justin. What you're saying is escentially, if you haven't started, don't, and if you have, stop. If you use AI, then those concerns are not a priority. That is an absolutist position, and that's what turns people off.
@quanin The crucial difference I was trying to get across is that, if you have to use it, use it as little as possible. To me that is different from don't use, at all,ever. It acknowledges that there may be a need for use, but that it would be in everyone's interests, except perhaps the people pushing the tech, if that use was heavily moderated. Perhaps it is an absolutist, or virtually absolutist position. I'm not seeing a practicable 3rd way atm.
-
@JustinMac84 "stop using" and "don't use" are basically the same thing, Justin. What you're saying is escentially, if you haven't started, don't, and if you have, stop. If you use AI, then those concerns are not a priority. That is an absolutist position, and that's what turns people off.
@quanin With all the info I have that I have alluded to here, knowing that the same companies pushing AI have deliberately and knowingly made all the rest of their stuff addictive and they don't want AI regulated at all, hence Meta's spending 65 mil to endorse AI-friendly politicians, to me, saying a little AI is fine, is like saying you'll be fine if you only do smack occasionally. To be clear, I neither like nor want to have that view and would love to be wrong.
-
@quanin With all the info I have that I have alluded to here, knowing that the same companies pushing AI have deliberately and knowingly made all the rest of their stuff addictive and they don't want AI regulated at all, hence Meta's spending 65 mil to endorse AI-friendly politicians, to me, saying a little AI is fine, is like saying you'll be fine if you only do smack occasionally. To be clear, I neither like nor want to have that view and would love to be wrong.
@JustinMac84 Do we know that, though? Or are we just telling ourselves that? https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/29/the-social-media-addiction-narrative-may-be-more-harmful-than-social-media-itself/
-
@JustinMac84 Do we know that, though? Or are we just telling ourselves that? https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/29/the-social-media-addiction-narrative-may-be-more-harmful-than-social-media-itself/
@quanin Execs have gone on record to say that they know they're making stuff addictive. One such was quoted in "Screen Time Stand-off" a book I am currently reading. Internal Ticktock memos were cited in the recent case against them by the US wanting to shut them down.