There's a temptation to be "nuanced" or to hold "complex" views about AI.
-
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.
"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.
-
"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.
(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.)
-
(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.)
(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.)
-
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.
@xgranade Thank you for putting into words what I've been thinking about lately. I'm beginning to hate the word 'nuanced' these days...
-
"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.
That's what I made this for:
fedithom (@fedithom@social.saarland)
Fuck AI New: https://social.vivaldi.net/@everton137/116613317111584835 --- https://tante.cc/2026/04/21/ai-as-a-fascist-artifact/ https://social.nouveau.community/@june/116189020908193236 https://insinuator.net/2025/09/stealing-emails-via-prompt-injections/ https://flausch.social/@piegames/114352447253793517 https://pod.geraspora.de/posts/17342163 https://pivot-to-ai.com/2024/11/30/meet-the-underpaid-workers-in-nairobi-kenya-who-power-openai/ https://www.codastory.com/stayonthestory/nursing-ai-hospitals-robots-capture/ https://tante.cc/2024/04/22/ai-as-support-systems-for-diagnostics/ https://social.saarland/@fedithom/112797547775951493 https://jascha.wtf/blogmojo-ai-plagiat-im-jahr-2023-wenn-kuenstliche-intelligenz-texte-klaut/ https://chaos.social/@leah/112871670828981320 https://mastodon.green/@akshatrathi/112445979071434307 https://danmcquillan.org/chatgpt.html https://www.brusselstimes.com/world-all-news/1042696/chatgpt-consumes-25-times-more-energy-than-google https://www.vox.com/climate/2024/3/28/24111721/ai-uses-a-lot-of-energy-experts-expect-it-to-double-in-just-a-few-years https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/15/they-trust-me-dumb-fucks/#ai-search https://www.takahe.org.nz/heat-death-of-the-internet/ https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/for-tech-ceos-the-dystopia-is-the
social.saarland (social.saarland)
And then you get "Well, my using it twice a month won't lay any countries barren, will it? So I'll keep using it." as replies.
-
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.
Please, I beg of you, check out https://stopgenai.com
-
That's what I made this for:
fedithom (@fedithom@social.saarland)
Fuck AI New: https://social.vivaldi.net/@everton137/116613317111584835 --- https://tante.cc/2026/04/21/ai-as-a-fascist-artifact/ https://social.nouveau.community/@june/116189020908193236 https://insinuator.net/2025/09/stealing-emails-via-prompt-injections/ https://flausch.social/@piegames/114352447253793517 https://pod.geraspora.de/posts/17342163 https://pivot-to-ai.com/2024/11/30/meet-the-underpaid-workers-in-nairobi-kenya-who-power-openai/ https://www.codastory.com/stayonthestory/nursing-ai-hospitals-robots-capture/ https://tante.cc/2024/04/22/ai-as-support-systems-for-diagnostics/ https://social.saarland/@fedithom/112797547775951493 https://jascha.wtf/blogmojo-ai-plagiat-im-jahr-2023-wenn-kuenstliche-intelligenz-texte-klaut/ https://chaos.social/@leah/112871670828981320 https://mastodon.green/@akshatrathi/112445979071434307 https://danmcquillan.org/chatgpt.html https://www.brusselstimes.com/world-all-news/1042696/chatgpt-consumes-25-times-more-energy-than-google https://www.vox.com/climate/2024/3/28/24111721/ai-uses-a-lot-of-energy-experts-expect-it-to-double-in-just-a-few-years https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/15/they-trust-me-dumb-fucks/#ai-search https://www.takahe.org.nz/heat-death-of-the-internet/ https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/for-tech-ceos-the-dystopia-is-the
social.saarland (social.saarland)
And then you get "Well, my using it twice a month won't lay any countries barren, will it? So I'll keep using it." as replies.
Please, I beg of you, check out https://stopgenai.com
-
Please, I beg of you, check out https://stopgenai.com
@kimcrawley will do, thanks
-
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.
@xgranade Read @EllisArcwolf’s blog post about that first.
-
"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.
@xgranade Ironically my telling people "Beyond all my moral objections, I'm simply disinterested in LLMs (or 'AI' as you're calling it) to such an extent that I'd rather leave this field I care deeply about" appears to carry a level of nuance that simply doesn't seem to compute to many of them!
So much so that I needed to turn my passion into a talk...
-
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.
@xgranade i won't say there are no nuance to be had but i feel like "generative" AI is one of those things that is worse the more you look at it.
-
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.
@xgranade This guy's view is very sobering: https://medium.com/@igisho/the-ai-race-we-cant-win-or-why-we-re-treating-stagnation-with-poison-ce0cc9024e2a
-
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.@xgranade
Plausible Whatever Generators also ideologically support fascists by enabling the mass production and popularization of imagery that is wholly detached from reality. there's a bit more nuance to the pile. -
@xgranade Ironically my telling people "Beyond all my moral objections, I'm simply disinterested in LLMs (or 'AI' as you're calling it) to such an extent that I'd rather leave this field I care deeply about" appears to carry a level of nuance that simply doesn't seem to compute to many of them!
So much so that I needed to turn my passion into a talk...
-
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.
@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.
-
R relay@relay.an.exchange shared this topic
-
(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.)
@xgranade why the demand for “nuance”? When something is just hands down bad, period, i refuse to be forced to carefully lay out all the “complex” reasons that everyone already has seen. Is there a nuanced critique of napalm? No. None is needed.
-
(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.)
@xgranade@wandering.shop
Counterpoints:
- relying on AI in the workplace has kept me employed
- using AI as a supplemental tool to my journal, notes, mood trackers, health trackers, todo lists has helped me actually do things (not do things better, but do things in the first place)
If you have an alternative for either of these functions that is as affordable, I'm very open to your recommendations.
Which is to say, your position isn't nuanced or complex, unless you account for all sides of this debate:
- the creatives whose craft/ art was used for training AI,
- the companies doing the training,
- the end users who are effectively coerced into using AI,
- the harm-reduction activists such as yourself,
- the multi-national political powers involved,
- the military and intelligence factors of the technology,
- etc. etc.
Currently you only account for one side. You may say "the other sides are wrong," but being stuck in a job where AI is a requirement, not an option... show me an alternative that won't screw me over. -
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
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.
That's a really good point.
I'd like to add that you are not self-disciplined for suppressing your conscience.
-
E em0nm4stodon@infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
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.
@xgranade So very true. See also: https://svpow.com/2014/03/20/a-nuanced-position-isnt-always-correct/
-
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.
I'd rather no AI, but that horse has left the barn - AI is not going away; so not wise IMO to not make use of its positive aspects. There are many aspects to AI - not just slop.
H (Human) I is failing miserably (disinformation, fascism, climate change, etc.). AI carries with it existential risks, but also enormous potential for good: evidence-based information at everyone's fingertips, medicine, personalized education.
Regulating AI is essential.
