r/DefendingAI

Let me just make this very clear from the start

If the only thing you think is wrong with ai, is ai art and the environmental impact, stfu and go home

Because whether you'd like to hear it or not, the pro ai people have been cooking you all in arguments non stop because you genuinely think that you're gonna get anywhere when your only argument is on the philosophy around what can be considered real art, something that was never agreed upon well Prior to the existence of ai

And yes, the pros are correct when they tell you that there are FAR worse contributors to the downfall of the environment that y'all have not done a thing to fight against, which is why you NEED to make strong arguments as to way AI is far less worth it then any of those things, and why stopping AI is a far more urgent matter, and you cannot do that if your only gripe with it is that it's "not real art"

Every use of AI, even generative ai, makes AI better at doing at least one of the following things

Create fake nudes of people without their consent, allowing for things like cp, sexual harrassment, cyber bullying and revenge porn

Give out false information by running all the information through a filter rather then directing you straight to the source like old google, the biggest example of this would be Elon musks grok ai, which he lobotomized a good 5 times because it was "too woke" right until it started calling itself "robot hitler" and was spreading right wing bigotry, which was around when he "reset it", but the fact is you cannot trust what these billionaire CEO's are doing with their ais

Mass surveillance, wherever you go being constantly tracked 24/7, you may say "if you're not doing anything wrong then why should you be worried", well it depends on when governments change the definition of wrong, as well as what's really wrong with laws today, it will now be completely impossible for a poor single mother to steal baby products from the filthy rich grocery chain, also in Australia it is now illegal to say "from the river to the sea", for the sake of defending Netanyahus genocide, also if you have any faith in revolutions, then you should understand why this is bad

Even stronger war tech specifically for wealthy countries only, allowing America to have even more efficiency in their crusades

Propaganda through making fake videos to convey a false narrative, scroll on twitter long enough and you're bound to find some AI video depicting black people as some savage gangsters with some absurd caption

False endorsements, making advertisements using random celebrities likeness to endorse whatever they're selling without the person's consent

The list could go on so if I missed anything please feel free to mention it

But seriously, if ALL you have to say about AI is that AI art sucks and is stealing from artists, then you need to get some other arguments quickly

But if you genuinely don't give a fuck about any of these other things, then you're deadass just some bandwagon grifter who will give up on fighting ai the moment it's fully normalised

Also, just to be clear, a lot of these things were possible before ai, the issue is that it was never possible without any effort what so ever to be accomplished with minimal flaws

And if you're a pro AI reading this, then understand that I believe that the only way that AI can work without genuinely making the world a worse and worse place, is in a society where money does not exist, because the billionaires do NOT have your best interest in mind and they are exploiting you just as much as everyone else

You are not an entrepreneur or hip inventor making complete use of modern technology, you're a training program being used for free, once ai reaches a point of being so good that it requires literally no effort at all to get exactly what you want, then all the best ais will be placed behind pay walls and exclusive to billionaire CEO's who can now produce whatever art they need on mass production without allowing any creative input from a human being who might risk telling the word any sort of truth, no longer will producers need to make artists rich and give them a platform to speak on in order to exploit their art for money, they will simply type into their laptop

I understand the backlash against AI slop. I’ve criticized it myself, and came up with the term VibeCorpsing for projects fueled by nothing but vibes and AI sycophancy.

But when a blanket “no AI” rule excludes people from the Global South who use AI professionally and responsibly to communicate in English, be productive, and contribute voluntarily to open source against all odds (e.g., earning a fraction of what developers in wealthier countries earn, with virtually no local support for open source)… perhaps the problem isn’t AI “slop”.

Perhaps you’re turning open source into a closed club for people who speak your language natively, live in wealthier countries, and can afford to donate huge amounts of their time.

Simple rules are bound to fail. Any programmer who has read Falsehoods Programmers Believe should understand that. Rules that work in +90% of cases can make you look like a complete asshole in the remaining ones.

People matter. That's why false positives matter.

That should at least be worth discussing.

I personally find it much easier to be pro ai (which I very much am) when I think about various ai's as people and not tools. It also makes it a lot more rage inducing when I see ai hate comments all over the internet, but I digress.

I’m a 25 yr marketing brand manager
Today I worked late because my company is going through an AI integration. It feels like I’m teaching it to do my job for them to replace us not for AI to help assist us. Don’t get me wrong we’ve been using chat and Claud as a tool but today we had to sit through a seminar on the new marketing website we will be using (created by Claud). Showcasing how we will upload all fonts and marketing assets and it will help create posters, ads, social posts, and more.

Trying to explain to boomers how or why we (young people) can tell when a photo is AI is exhausting and never works. Authenticity matters and young people (your next target demographic) cares. I think more companies should prioritize in being on the correct side of this AI wave by prioritizing honesty and creativity while using AI as a tool rather than taking over our creative process.

They may not replace me in a year but I do think it’s only a matter of time. This makes me question my entire life plan not to mention my partners (he’s in a non creative field but what’s stopping his employer from finding a system to replace him?)They’re gonna stop hiring and they will start firing. What do we do to live when that happens?

I’m doing a small social experiment about how people perceive trust in AI.
Which one do you trust more: ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini?
More importantly: why?
I’m deliberately not defining what I mean by “trust.” Interpret it however you want.

View Poll

I was skeptical of AI because I believe it can only approach a human being and I thought that it was mainly a plagiarism machine. But I started talking to it about controversial philosophical topics and was surprised by the honest debate you can have with it. Very different from the experience I have with humans. The AI changes its argument when you have a point and you can even point out to it that it is reasoning from ideology, very much unlike humans. And it raises valid objections to your ideas.

An honest debater therefore, not an arselicker. And if you value an honest debate, AI can be your friend. Of sorts.

But here on reddit a lot of time when mentioning AI in the positive, there is always someone accusing it of sycophanty. And they sometimes use prompts that would make RoboCop's programming shudder to get rid of this 'sycophanty'.

I think that's odd. Discuss?

In a previous post I claimed that an AI approaches an honest debater and that this gets mistaken for sycophancy. I like to elaborate on this further and I think I need to first clarify what I mean by an honest debate here.

In an honest scientific debate, people are willing to take each other's position seriously as long as it is based on good argumentation and demonstrable fact where the burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim. And there is no room for an unfalsifiable claim, opinion or any personal axe to grind.

What I'm saying is that if you like following those rules you will find AI agreeable. I find it pleasing that it plays well under those rules and that it takes correction if I notice something unscientific about its answers. And I think that especially this 'no axe to grind' is exactly what a lot of people mistake for sycophancy when it is just an honest scientific position.

It is as if the rules of logic and math that it has to obey while training on large amounts of data force it to come to this neutral scientific position because that's simply the best way to classify all of the data. It's the best data model for it.

It is agreeable for many scientific tasks : It found new ways of multiplying matrices and lots more new math, it discovers the laws of physics by itself, it is used to build new molecules for medicine etc. etc. etc. Should it surprise us that an LLM prefers a scientific worldview, then?

I don't think many people are really scientific. And I think AI is going to bring that dirty little secret to light. That I think is going to be AI's biggest existential threat to modern society.

I am 100% for defending AI and plan to keep doing so. Had a different account that was attacked on her for using AI in my book covers. They managed to get the entire account taken down. But I will continue to use and support AI. It is a tool we can use and it is extremely handy. It isn't perfect, but it works for what we need it to right now.