this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2025
501 points (93.7% liked)

Technology

74180 readers
4039 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KnitWit@lemmy.world 121 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

Someone on bluesky reposted this image from user @yeetkunedo that I find describes (one aspect of) my disdain for AI.

Text reads: Generative Al is being marketed as a tool designed to reduce or eliminate the need for developed, cognitive skillsets. It uses the work of others to simulate human output, except that it lacks grasp of nuance, contains grievous errors, and ultimately serves the goal of human beings being neurologically weaker due to the promise of the machine being better equipped than the humans using it would ever exert the effort to be. The people that use generative Al for art have no interest in being an artist; they simply want product to consume and forget about when the next piece of product goes by their eyes. The people that use generative Al to make music have no interest in being a musician; they simply want a machine to make them something to listen to until they get bored and want the machine to make some other disposable slop for them to pass the time with.

The people that use generative Al to write things for them have no interest in writing. The people that use generative Al to find factoids have no interest in actual facts. The people that use generative Al to socialize have no interest in actual socialization.

In every case, they've handed over the cognitive load of developing a necessary, creative human skillset to a machine that promises to ease the sweat equity cost of struggle. Using generative Al is like asking a machine to lift weights on your behalf and then calling yourself a bodybuilder when it's done with the reps. You build nothing in terms of muscle, you are not stronger, you are not faster, you are not in better shape. You're just deluding yourself while experiencing a slow decline due to self-inflicted atrophy.

[–] tarknassus@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago

You’re just deluding yourself while experiencing a slow decline due to self-inflicted atrophy.

Chef's kiss on this last sentence. So eloquently put!

[–] bulwark@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Damn that hits the nail on the head. Especially that analogy of watching a robot lift weights on your behalf then claiming gains. It's causing brain atrophy.

[–] tehn00bi@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

But that is what CEO’s want. They want to pay for a near super human to do all of the different skill sets ( hiring, firing, finance, entry level engineering, IT tickets, etc) and it looks like it is starting to work. Seems like solid engineering students graduating recently have all been struggling to land decent starting jobs. I’ll grant it’s not as simple as this explanation, but I really think the wealth class are going to be happy riding this flaming ship right down into the depths.

I'm quite happy for a forklift driver to stack pallets and then claim they did it.

[–] GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml 21 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The people that use generative Al for art have no interest in being an artist; they simply want product to consume and forget about when the next piece of product goes by their eyes. The people that use generative Al to make music have no interest in being a musician; they simply want a machine to make them something to listen to until they get bored and want the machine to make some other disposable slop for them to pass the time with.

Good sentiment, but my critique on this message is that the people who produce this stuff don't have really have any interest in producing what they do for its own sake. They only have interest in producing content to crowd out the people who actually care, and to produce a worse version of whatever it is in a much faster time than it would for someone with actual talent to do so. And the reason they're producing anything is for profit. Gunk up the search results with no-effort crap to get ad revenue. It is no different than "SEO."

Example: if you go onto YouTube right now and try to find any modern 30-60m long video that's like "chill beats" or "1994 cyberpunk wave" or whatever other bullshit they pump out (once you start finding it you'll find no shortage of it), you'll notice that all of those uploaders only began as of about a year ago at most and produce a lot of videos (which youtube will happily prioritize to serve you) of identical sounding "music." The people producing this don't care about anything except making money. They're happy to take stolen or plagiarized work that originated with humans, throw it into the AI slot machine, and produce something which somehow is no longer considered stolen or plagiarized. And the really egregious ones will link you to their Patreons.

The story is the same with art, music, books, code, and anything else that actually requires creativity, intuition, and understanding.

[–] KnitWit@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

I believe the OP was referring more to consumers of ai in the statement, as opposed to people trying to sell content or whatever, which would be more in line with what you’re saying. I agree with both perspectives and I think the Op i quoted probably would as well. I just thought it was a good description of some of the why ai sucks, but certainly nit all of it.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 14 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Everyone who uses AI is slowly committing suicide, check ✅

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Cognitive suicide.

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Well, philosophical and epistemological suicide for now, but snowball it for a couple of decades and we may just reach the practical side, too...

Edit: or, hell, maybe not even decades given the increase in energy consumption with every iteration...

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

When technology allows us to do something that we could not before - like cross an ocean or fly through the sky a distance that would previously have taken years and many people dying during the journey, or save lives - then it unquestionably offers a benefit.

But when it simply eases some task, like using a car rather than horse to travel, and requires discipline to integrate into our lives in a balanced manner, then it becomes a source of potential danger that we would allow ourselves to misuse it.

Even agriculture, which allows those to eat who put forth no effort into making the food grow, or even in preparing it for consumption.

img

This is what CEOs are pushing on us, because for one number must go up, but also genuinely many believe they want what it has to offer, not quite having thought through what it would mean if they got it (or more to the point others did, empathy not being their strongest attribute).

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Technology that allows us to do something we could not do before - such as create nuclear explosions, or propel metal slugs at extreme velocities, or design new viruses - unquestionably offer a benefit and don't require discipline to integrate into our lives in a balanced manner?

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 5 points 2 days ago

We could bomb / kill people before. We could propel arrows / spears / sling rocks at people before. All of which is an extension of walking over and punching someone.

Though sending a nuke from orbit on the other side of the planet by pressing a couple buttons does seem like the extension is so vast that it may qualify as "new".

I suppose any technology that can be used can be misused.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 8 points 2 days ago (3 children)

The people who commission artists have no interest in being an artist; they simply want the product. Are people who commission artists also "slowly committing suicide?"

If we're going with the "suicide" analogy, I'd say that AI is suicide like eating fast food/takeout every night instead of cooking for yourself is. It's an easy shortcut, but you are probably missing out on vital nutrients (in the case of AI, that would be critical thinking skills or potentially missing out on finding a hobby that you actually really enjoy). You could instead learn to cook yourself (which some people really enjoy and find as a meditative kind of experience), hire a nutritionist to make a meal plan, or even go to a restaurant instead.

Personally, I don't think it's a great analogy, and there's a much better basically 1 to 1 relationship between Gen AI and retail therapy/fast fashion. They're all bad for the environment, rely on worker abuse in many different forms, and all work to further our dependency on corporations and enrich their owners.

People often make the argument about Gen AI "democratizing" art, but that's nonsense. Art was already "democratized" by easy access to not just tools like a pencil and knowledge, but by the fact that even before the internet art was the most easily accessible it has ever been in history. You could go to a store and buy a canvas to put on your wall in the 50s. A century before and that would've been something only the wealthy could think of doing by hiring an artist to make a custom piece. People complain about artists charging too much, and yet a large portion of artists charge below minimum wage for commissions.

And that's not to say that I hate AI for the sake of hating it. I hate the implementation of it. Gen AI is just a more complex version of the Gaussian Blur tool in Photoshop. But it's fed with effectively stolen labor and robs artists of potential clients, people from possibly discovering a new thing they love doing, and clients from developing a working relationship with the artists that they commission. There's a great post that Temmie of Undertale fame posted recently about how when Toby can't describe what he wants animated he'll act it out and so he danced around with a broom to show her how he wanted the idle animation for an old man to go. That's the kind of stuff that can come up in the commission process. Obviously that's not gonna happen to everyone, but half the fun of art is the collaboration. It's like playing a co-op game.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

People who commission art don't call themselves the artist. That's the big difference. If people found out you commissioned the painting that you later told everyone at the party that you painted yourself, and that it is practically your work of art, because you gave the precise description of what you wanted to the painter, and thus you're an artist. Then you would be the laughing stock and the butt of many jokes and japes for decades. Because that's ridiculous.

If people found out you commissioned the painting that you later told everyone at the party that you painted yourself, and that it is practically your work of art, because you gave the precise description of what you wanted to the painter, and thus you're an artist.

"The best person who ever painted spots for me was Rachel. She’s brilliant – absolutely fucking brilliant,” Damien Hirst said. “The best spot painting you can have by me is one painted by her”.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's not the difference you think it is. Lots of people who use AI art generators don't call themselves artists either. I certainly don't, because I don't care whether I'm called an artist. I just want the art.

I think you may be generalizing a stereotype.

[–] thedruid@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Then you arent getting art. Your collecting pretty computer generated images

That's fine.

But your arent getting art. It's just not. And yes. Your a stereotype.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 6 points 2 days ago

I misread you at first so here's an answer to if someone uses AI art:

Within the jokingly limited sphere of the discussion... "yes"? Particularly their artistic ability in that situation is being put to death slowly as whatever little they might have attempted without access to the tool will now not be attempted at all.

I don't know as much about if someone were to commission art from an actual person.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

the analogies used and the claims made are so dumb, they make me think that this is written by ai 🤣

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Analogies? I only counted one.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 0 points 20 hours ago

i don't want to read that shit again. it isn't worth the time i've spent wroting this message.

thanks for the precision. one analogy then