u/RedditUser000aaa

At 4:07 a.m. Tuesday, after a contentious overnight session, the Colorado legislature passed Senate Bill 189, a bill that strips out almost everything that made the 2024 Colorado AI Act the most-watched piece of state AI legislation in the country. Gone is the duty of care developers and deployers owed to consumers harmed by algorithmic discrimination. Gone are the mandatory risk-management programs. Gone are the impact assessments. What remains is a requirement that companies only have to let you know, after the fact, when an AI system has been used to deny you a loan, a job, or a place to live — and an opportunity to appeal. The use of AI to change your life is now fine. The only legal requirement left is that they have to tell you AI did so. The law’s effective date, originally February 2026, has been pushed to January 2027. Governor Jared Polis, who helped draft the replacement, is expected to sign it within days.

Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez, the bill’s sponsor, told The Colorado Sun, “Everybody lost and everybody won.” The Colorado Technology Association, the trade group lobbying against the original law for two years, called the new version “meaningful progress.” But that’s all just code for the gutting of consumer protection.

Northern Nevada has become one of the fastest-growing data-center corridors in the country. Google, Apple, and Microsoft have either built or are planning facilities around the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center east of Reno. The Desert Research Institute, using data from NV Energy’s 2024 Integrated Resource Plan, found that the 12 data center projects located overwhelmingly in Northern Nevada could drive 5,900 megawatts of new demand by 2033. At a regional business event last fall, NV Energy’s director of business development called the moment “unprecedented,” saying the company was eager to serve the new industrial load but that it would not “impact our existing customer base.”

But Liberty’s 49,000 California customers may already be bearing the cost. Liberty Utilities generates about 25% of its power from solar facilities it owns in Nevada. The other 75% comes from NV Energy, and that source will no longer be supplied to the region by this time next year.

No story this time, just an observation about these communities in general.

So, what these people don't seem to get is that no one just woke up one day and decided: "Yep, I have to hate this person."

No, that is the result of their very own actions. I'll be now explaining the reasoning.

First one is antihuman, not used very often, but I've seen it used:

These people want to displace people from their jobs, because they themselves believe that it leads to UBI and being able to live life.

Anti-consent:

An information campaign started by me after the DDLC drama, but also something that has been happening a lot before then. Smaller artists having their art sexualized or appearing in other peoples, as well as having art being fed into AI.

Done in all AI-communities.

Corporate bootlicker:

Constant support of various AI tools developed by scammers and fascists, especially by Altman and Musk. Also has happened a lot.

So as usual, there's a paradox. Don't want to be called names, but then they act according to those names.

This time I'd like to talk about something that's happened with AI. Artists of every kind having their works taken and fed into the AI. As usual the story provided is a work of fiction with truths baked into it.

Gary is a 40-year old man. In his life, he wanted to be an artist. However, as a child, no matter how hard he tried, he never got better at it. Frustrated, at some point he stopped altogether, losing passion for the art.

However, later in life Gary heard whispers of a program that could make images about anything. You just needed to type what you want into the keyboard and computer would handle the rest.

He took it upon himself to find out more. He tried it out and indeed. The first iterations were clumsy, but now he believed that he had a chance of being an artist again, with the help of AI. He did get better at prompting, believing he worked hard to perfect each iteration.

As time went on, he wasn't satisfied with the online models, so he went to search for a local model. Something that was pre-trained. No need to worry about losing internet connection and he had a beefy enough computer to run a basic AI that would generate images.

The local model was fine, but he wanted to fine tune them. So he took artwork that he thought would look cool and train it further. He had to learn a little bit about the process, but he managed.

He eventually created what he deemed to be a fine image. He was proud of it, so he shared it online. He loved getting compliments on it. He thought himself to finally be an artist.

One day, however he noticed something that resembled his prompts popping up online, getting compliments. He was angry. People had taken his prompt and claimed it as their own.

He went on a tirade about people stealing HIS work he poured his soul and heart into. People told him that he can't gatekeep art, that what had happened was fair use. That he can't blame people from getting inspired.

This is quite the paradox. While not every single person complains about their prompts being "stolen", there are those who do.

Those people forget the irony behind it all. That AI has been used to rob people's artwork, in order for AI to generate coherent pictures. Daring to complain about theft, when they were also doing it is just ridiculous. They want to protect their prompts, but at the same time tell artists to go pound sand, saying that it's okay for them to train AI models using their art.

This is a part of a series I'm doing about AI and the paradoxes people use to defend it. I'll be doing these until I don't have the energy for it or I can't find new paradoxes. The stories themselves are fictional, but there's truth in them. In this case the case of companies trying to use AI to cut expenses. ...Even if the opposite ends up happening.

Let's get to the paradox #1:

Rebecca, 27 is a smart woman. She made friends, connections and got a good position at a company that pays well and has good benefits. She's also a firm believer of work smarter not harder.

The job is simple enough. In fact, it's so simple that she tested whether it would be possible to automate it a little bit using AI.

Of course she wasn't stupid enough to blindly trust the work process with AI. She checked the work and made corrections when needed. With her skills, she could easily spot the mistakes. She also didn't become any more productive, as that could lead to more work.

It did lighten up her workload quite a bit, even if she had to go through it manually.

However, disaster struck when one of her superiors noticed that she had made work easier for herself.

The company eventually found out about the use of AI. Rebecca's branch was shrunk considerably in favor of automating the process with AI. Rebecca was among those who got fired.

The remaining staff was taught to use AI and to be on the lookout for hallucinations.

People want to have it easier, people don't want to work harder. However, the same goes for companies.

Companies always look to cut unnecessary expenses. To companies, people are the unnecessary expense.

So, those in favor of AI cannot complain, when they are on the receiving end of getting replaced by AI. Especially after they try to use it to make work easier for themselves.

The neighbors of a data center in Georgia are steaming after they discovered the facility had sucked up nearly 30 million gallons of water — without initially paying for it.

Outrage started bubbling up last year when residents of an affluent subdivision named Annelise Park in Fayetteville, Georgia, noticed their water pressure was unusually low.

When the county utility investigated, officials discovered two industrial-scale water hookups feeding a data center campus located 20 miles south of downtown Atlanta. One water connection had been installed without the utility’s knowledge, and the other was not linked to the company’s account and therefore wasn’t being billed.

I think this is the perfect moment to talk about this. As you know, Team Salvato recently voiced their disapproval of feeding their characters to AI as well as prompting them with AI. I want to use this opportunity to talk about this while it's still relevant and in peoples' minds.

I'd like to take this moment to address the main issue. AI bros' inability to accept no for an answer. Consent is a fairly simple concept. Someone tells you no and you accept it. That is not the case with AI bros. They take a no and trample on it.

This incident just brought to daylight what AI bros have been doing. Whether it's using Grok to create CSAM and nudes of adults without their consent or running a small-time artists' works through AI and reproducing it, it's all wrong.

In their communities, not only did they ignore Team Salvato's no, they took it and started generating more out of spite. What does this tell you about AI bros and their communities?

To me, personally it tells that these people think it's okay to ignore a no, when they disagree with it. At the same time, they hide behind consent, the very same thing they blatantly disrespect to play the victim.

No matter what you say no to, people should accept it. Your consent always matters, no matter what.

I feel bad for artists who have been disrespected like this. I also feel bad for Team Salvato, but at the same time it did help expose this massive issue that's been brewing within AI communities for as long as AI has existed.

This was a short talk on importance of consent.