this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025
1102 points (96.9% liked)
Microblog Memes
9017 readers
3056 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I also apologize.
I guess we have to agree to disagree and agree to agree? LLM design happens to be my area of work for the last 4 months or so and I tend to agree that it's a hateful domain without much to offer. That said, my ability to do my job is extremely enabled by perplexity.ai. I think about 95% of regular people's queries to generative AI of any kind is a waste of effort an active pursuit of brain atrophy, but there is definitely some upside.
I don't think that sentiment is echoed by the original post. I also think that with the overwhelming number of anti/fuck ai posts it's worth highlighting upside when there is upside. Last, I just don't in any way think that someone who writes a full bore "ai is evil" post has left any space to discuss any sort of benefit. So that's my main disagreement with you. I think "AI is stupid" is implied if there's no single positive mention.
I can honestly say perplexity.ai has saved me hours of technical research debugging, and I've got a PhD in rocket science and Ive been programming since 2003. By and large it's totally stupid, but if you know what you need and what good answers look and feel like, it's hard to be like "AI BAD!" which is the majority perspective of this type of thread.
Mkay, I think we agree more than we disagree. For instance yeah, I agree that AI has its uses and I actually agree with the top-level comment. Like you, I also don't particularly wish to join in the chorus of un-nuanced "AI bad!" takes (as opposed to more nuanced anti-AI takes). If there's a post that's exaggerating the environmental impact of AI, I will upvote a well-researched comment that dissents. (Environmental impact strikes me as one of the places where AI fears are really overblown -- golf courses currently use over 15× more water than datacenters in total, but they don't have even a 15^th^ the outrage.) So yeah, I would rather that the "fuck AI" crowd be more level-headed when agitating against AI and not use poorly-researched, poorly-reasoned arguments when there are much better arguments against AI. If you were to really boil it down, I would say I agree with you here:
But it's the same principles that lead me to upvote thoughtful dissent that makes me dislike the top-level comment here. It's not thoughtful. It might be a good comment in a thread about how AI is completely worthless with no redeeming qualities -- and I'd upvote it there -- but I am not going to take my frustration with threads like that and upvote the comment in this context, where a dozen other reasons were given to rally against AI (some I agree with, some I don't) and top-level-comment chooses the one time to bring up a good point in a context where it's not relevant.
Sure, the OP here is being rather overzealous, and if I were going to leave some dissent in this thread I would choose one of the things they said I disagreed with. But I just don't think this thread specifically is an appropriate place to say "actually, AI has some good uses." That strikes me as rounding the OP toward zero, and we don't need more of that.