I wouldn’t call it lazy to not want to host your own forums. Moderation, much as the average internet user loves to lambast it, is not an easy task at all. And that’s not even giving any consideration to the hosting costs themselves; that’s both money and time that many FOSS projects can’t afford.

I’ll agree that Discord is shit for a variety of reasons, but the solution is for something better than Discord to appear,^[1] not to ask FOSS projects to do even more free work.

This isn’t what enshittification is, and I can’t imagine any expanded definition that would include this either. Enshittification is when a company deliberately worsens a product for profit. FOSS projects don’t have companies,^[1] nor do they have profit. Frankly, even if they did, the intents and methods inherent to the pattern of enshittifcation aren’t present here. Unless you’re talking about Discord itself, but that’s tangential to OP’s main point.

What these projects are doing is following the path of least resistance, which happens to go toward a walled garden at present. If there’s a word for that, I don’t know what it is, but it isn’t enshittification.

It’s worth clarifying that when I say “as good as human art,” I am not speaking to a purely material perspective. Broadly speaking, AI bros don’t care for that human context, so to them those theoretically-surpassable errors are all that’s left to solve for. In there lies the idiocy.

At any rate though, I agree, and I appreciate the thoughtful comment!

The title and much of the way this is written suggests contempt on the part of the author for people who hate AI. Which leaves me wondering what this post is doing here, on a site that has a lot of people who hate AI? If I’m supposed to think it’s funny – or for that matter, meaningful – I don’t. This is a cheap gotcha used periodically by pro-AI types, who then pretend that GenAI output is somehow as good as human art just because people can’t instinctively recognize it on sight.

Eh, “anti-AI” isn’t that. Bannon’s doing a different tactic here: Pretending you believe in something good so that people are more likely to listen your batshit insanity at other times.

AI has mostly been a financial boon for the country, buoying the stock market and driving growth.

Gosh, speak for the billionaires, why don’t you? My finances, and the finances of everyone I know, have most certainly not seen any improvement. If anything, it’s getting actively worse, in ways that this very article acknowledges. All for a technology none of us want. And yet the writer still feels the need to pretend things are good because the S&P 500’s doing well, as if that means shit fuck all for the rest of us. Go figure that as usual “the economy is doing great” is shorthand for “wealth inequality is going up.”

I’m sick and tired of hearing this misleading concept, so I’m going to vent for a second: Most people do not have large stock market investments! They are too busy paying rent! What’s good for the rich isn’t what’s good for me, and I do not fucking care about the goddamn NASDAQ!

ETA: oh by the way if Steve Bannon says he agrees with something good, maybe consider not believing him

I haven’t played Civ 7, but it’s mostly for lack of money, because honestly? In no world can I call this change “wrong.” This is experimentation to me. I like experimentation. And for that matter, I like the concept too. Civilizations change throughout history, that’s how that works! And it can introduce opportunities to fix the issue I usually have with Civ games where I run out of things to do (like exploring) and get bored before the game’s over.

Now, I have no idea if it actually pulled that off; maybe they fucked it up bad. But most of the complaints I’m seeing are from folks who really mostly just seem like they didn’t want their cheese moved. And while that’s understandable, I think we’ve got enough Civ games that do the usual Civ stuff by now. If you want that, why not just play 5 or 6?

I really, really hope this doesn’t prevent future Civ games from trying new stuff out. Triple-A games take few enough risks as it is.

Lemmy.ML is full of ML. So go get one.

Ah, I see the issue. This might help.

I don’t use Lemmy outside of Beehaw. “ML” doesn’t mean that instance to me. I don’t care for that instance.

Alright, let’s take this seriously for a sec: You want me to go dig up someone who doesn’t know or care about any of what’s going on in this thread, have them sign up for Lemmy and post here, all so they can stand there in front of you? Listen to yourself. You’re talking about people like they’re things I can just pick up and dangle in front of you like car keys.

I’m not here to arm-wrestle you. You disagree. I get it. We can move on now.

EDIT: Overwriting this comment because I regret the original one above. It looks pretty likely to me that the person at the top of this chain is genuinely a tankie, and even though I wasn’t trying to defend them or the instance they’re from, I may’ve been inadvertently doing so. So I’m wiping it.

If you don’t want to believe me, just say that and leave the snark behind. This isn’t Reddit.

deleted by creator

There are no doubt countless programs to scan QR codes on a desktop computer, and I know similar exists for phones. A camera is not needed.

At the same time though, that begs the question of what, exactly, is going to prevent an AI from doing the same goddamn thing? So it’s still shit.

I’m going assume your link is coming to a good conclusion. I find the idea that cattle farming produces a lot of greenhouse gases to be very believable, and so I will take that as a given. But even with that in mind, the argument doesn’t hold.

First, people can be mad about two things at once. We don’t have to pick between being upset about one contributor of climate change versus another, we can just be upset at both. Besides, I think it’s safe to say that cattle farming is a better use of resources than AI is. Like yeah, sure, I think it has some serious excesses. There’s animal welfare issues, the aforementioned climate problems, and just the general problems of rampant and negligent industrialization writ large. But even after all that, it’s still feeding people. AI doesn’t have that silver lining,^[1] so the comparison is unfair as well as unnecessary.

As for the IP argument, no, I didn’t shoot my own argument down. Please do not mistake my good faith self-examination for a failure. Like I said, it’s still perfectly viable to hate AI for that reason, and I explained why — just because there are better reasons doesn’t make that one invalid. I have no idea why you’d think AI companies aren’t still training on small creator’s works en masse though.^[2] To me, that’s wrong at face value, but to explain:

Training is one of the biggest things that AI companies are constantly pushing for, because they believe that’s the primary vector by which the technology has (allegedly) improved. It’s one of the biggest sources of the environmental problem. And even if that wasn’t among their top priorities, why would they stop? Scraping is cheap. Several of them committed massive acts of literally-illegal piracy to do it. They’re clearly willing to jump hurdles for even a theoretical benefit, so why quit? Why ever quit?

With regards to your anger: Alright, yeah, I understand that. I disagree, for a variety of reasons that are probably obvious by now. To me, you’ve either been mislead, or – knowing how AI sometimes affects people – you may have used AI yourself and become somewhat dependent on it. I dunno. But I’ve been mad about stuff before and said rude shit because of it, so I can relate.

I think the helpful thing to be reminded of in this context, then, is that if you want to convince people, this can’t be how you try. People do not take well to “telling it how it is,” or any other form of tough-love style argumentation. They get defensive. It’s completely counter-productive and only helps to alienate people from you. Which is a pain in the ass, I know; slowing down to say something kinder has huge friction, while venting what you actually feel is satisfying. But unless venting is the goal, you want the former. Gentle words and impersonal, non-accusatory language can go a long way; even if people get mad it you for that, they’re still more likely to introspect after.

When I see people begin their Anti-AI arguements with “it’s bad for the environment” I tune out completely. These motherfuckers have been driving gasoline powered vehicles around for decades,

So, we’re starting with this:

and are totally fine with natural gas fired power plants.

…and a complete assumption about the author’s opinions. One that is in direct contradiction to what they’ve said in the article. I shouldn’t need to elaborate on why this is a bad start.

Then you discount IP theft as a concept, when caring for creator’s works (and encouraging more) is what IP was invented for. And yeah, it’s grown massively out of control. There’s a reason Cory Doctorow and many others have suggested that concern for copyright is the wrong reason to hate AI. But if you ask me, you still can hate AI for that when it comes to small creators, who cannot meaningfully weaponize the broken aspects of it. And those creators are precisely who AI companies disproportionately steal from.

Lastly, you end your comment the same way you started it, only now it’s even more like the meme. The entire post is about how they quit their job because they now felt staying was unsound from both ethical and practical perspectives. That is a direct example of them following their morals.

I believe the arguments you make here are bad, but the condescension dripping off your post – especially when you’re attacking the author for hypocrisies that aren’t even real – is much worse. That’s Reddit behavior, and it’s not helping anyone.

That’s very understandable. While I think we disagree on the utility of AI (since I feel that it is more harmful than it is useful, and am unsure how much that would change post-bubble), I do agree that this is a likely path for the gov’t to take and would leave the most serious things completely unaddressed while also clamping down on some things that shouldn’t be to begin with. Heck, in many regards, you could say the GUARD act is this problem in motion.

For me, I guess, the bubble and its effects on us are just so ridiculous and exhausting at this point that it’s hard for me to worry about things like this. Though I do vehemently hate government use of AI especially; using it at all is a problem in my mind, but using it specifically to deliberately hurt people is reprehensibly disgusting.

AI-driven

I look forward to the future, where we may see entire buildings aflame because someone thought a guesswork machine was the best thing to rely on for fire safety.

(Also, I don’t know if it’d apply here, but there are some known problems with infrasound.)

I think it’s fine if people are mad at both. By all means, encourage people to be angry at the responsible companies. But you don’t gotta defend the tech to do that.

Besides, as far as I’m concerned, strong anti-AI sentiment does actually help temper the harms of the tech and its owners. Is it a permanent solution? Obviously not, no — you’re very correct that the groups and people hard-pusing AI are much more important targets for ire. But two pressures are better than one.

“You may flame me now, for I am full of love”

So, I was gonna disagree for various reasons, but this suggests you are posting specifically to incite arguments. Are you? Because that’s not what good faith looks like.

I’m aware. I think the primary difference between this bill and that general age-gating push is that AI itself does cause very real harm. To everyone, really. I’m not sure I’d even say children are particularly vulnerable.

Regardless, I came to the conclusion that the bill isn’t worth it as-is in my newer analysis post.