No, it does not.

Let me get this straight. You see a picture of Misty. Do you think of her genitals?

If they tell you in the show that she is trans, do you start thinking about her genitals?

That’s weird.

Why would you think about wee wees when looking at a pikachu next to a trans rights flag?

As for answering your question. Maybe not polar opposite. But nationalism is pretty common on kids shows, I cannot think on many things as political as nationalism. Certainly “I support this particular nation” is a far more political statement that “I do exist”.

Watch this list, number 6 will surprise you!!!

Doctors finds that the new food that is causing cancer to everyone who eats is… (Article title cuts here, answer is nowhere to be found in the article title, introduction or conclusion).

We all know that if the post was about the polar opposite the “politics” would have not bothered them.

Everything is laugh and giggles until the thermostat is turing complete.

It has helped me with coding. Coding might be fun. But also incredibly tedious and frustrating. And it’s a job people in general don’t want to do in most cases. Hobby coding is not the same as having to code for a corporation. If AI helps taking away hours from those jobs it’s a society success.

Other field where it could be relevant is phone operators. One of the most universally hated jobs. I had to work as a phone operator for a few years and everyday I wish my job could be done by an AI. And I think it actually could be the case. What I did could be 100% done by an AI. Just to spare workers the suffering of having to deal with angry people on the phone AI is worth it.

AFAIK current gen self driving cars are safer than human drivers if we measure medium lethal accidents by traveled distance. I don’t know what are those concerns. They are currently safer and will get safer overtime. Yep quick search finds me recent research that current self driving cars are safer than humans in most situations. Only not being yet safer apparently in low visibility situations, but safer overall. Something 100% fixable. I really do not see the safety complains when studies say that overall they are already safer and less prone to cause human deaths. And there’s no strong argument that I know for not believing that they will keep getting more and more safe overall to the point that human driving would probably be considered unethical. I really cannot see any argument besides “new tech scary here”. Many lethal accidents are caused by bad human behavior (drunk/drug driving, sleep deprived driving, lack of attention, reckless driving) that a machine would never do. A self driving car won’t drink and drive… I really have a very hard time trying to understand anyone against self driven cars. Arguments against it seems… So flimsy… And most of the time I find that the root of the matter is “new technology = scary” a tale as old as time.

How many artists jobs do you think that the introduction of photoshop or digital art took? Better, how many artists jobs do you think that photography took. Before anyone wanting to preserve an image of anything had to pay massive money to an artists to paint it. Then some guy invented a machine that making one click can automatically make a image of anything. Advancement of technology be like that.

Same with coding, there used to be a job that was sewing cables to create computer programs. Create the simplest of the programs was a job for maybe hundreds of people. Introduction of better programming languages, techniques an tech in general has made that a program that used to take hundreds of jobs now could be done by a single person. AI programming tools are just another step in that direction. And not even a massively large one (I think C destroyed far more jobs than AI).

Fair enough. Have good holidays!

We live in a capitalist word. Almost every use of every technology is unethical.

But people hold a special grudge against AI.

Same example as before. Is United Healthcare use AI for denying treatment it got pointed out. If they used a Java app and traditional algorithms to do so, it’s not the technology which we point out, don’t we?

If AI is forced in windows 11 by Microsoft, it’s pointed out. But if they force Teams, we don’t hate communication applications, don’t we? We don’t say that communication applications are bad and unethical. Even if most of them are as property of big tech as AI is.

Now the question is, why AI is getting this special treatment?

In order to get the answer I traces where the hated started. There was AI before. And the first by jump in generative AI was not hated, quite the contrary it got plenty of praise. But then Image generation came… And it rubbed artist the wrong way, thus the anti-AI movement started.

Also I looked for other correlations with people against AI. And I found that they tend to be against any new technology from the last 5-10 years or so.

So that’s how I found the answer of that question. Just looking at the origins and looking at who had those opinions.

I have found that the genesis of most things is the key to really understand them. And this genesis really explains why if an AI takes workers jobs it’s hated and pointed out, but if a python script does the same it’s not.

I’m an open minded person. If I get a better answer to that question that bugs me, I would reconsider my position. But I’m yet to read any rational answer on:

Why AI gets a special treatment when judging its unethical uses when compared with any other technology also being unethically used by corporations and capitalism?

Btw, being creative is not excuse to believe in Intelectual Property. Plenty of creative people do not believe in Private Property and/or Intelectual Property. I can make an example out of myself on this, as I make small videogames for a hobby, which is a form of art, and all of them all open source, I didn’t even put a license on them of any kind. So being creative does not need to equal believing in Intelectual Property, same as working with means of production does not equal believing in the private ownership of those means of production. What you do and what you believe in can be, and often are, separated.

They actually are though.

Environmental rape. Fun meaningless term, when having Photoshop open for hours is more environmentally damaging that creating the equivalent with Stable Diffusion.

You cannot unpack any nuance because you are intellectually incapable of doing so. As you only seem to follow the latest trend for your favourite influencer, without actually making any real analysis of what you are saying or writing. The “funny meaningless terminology” you used is more than enough indicator to me that behind those words there are not any thoughts.

I’m not big tech and I use AI, in a computer with a top 40W consumption. So try again cave boy. Try tell me how I’m “raping” earth with that use of AI.

Sorry for all the names thrown in this post, but you got it coming.

I hope that if you hate AI because it’s overly and needlessly used by big tech everywhere you at least would have the decency of hating JavaScript too.

We got it boys. Let’s ban tractors because they took away the job of millions of farmers. That would make the world a better place to live, I’m sure.

Linux is not a “scary new technology”. It has been around forever.

Try to look for a positive view on any technology that has been blooming in the last 5-10 years instead. You’ll find few. At least I find few.

For instance, self driving cars are also hated. Digital currency instead of cash (not talking about cryptocurrency, just things like digital euro, or digital yuan). Any form of digitalization of anything that wasn’t digital until the last 5 years seems to be hated.

Welp, even smartphones seems to be hated. The other day I stumbled into a post where a lot of people said that they preferred old fliphones and where considering getting one instead of a smartphone.

Technobros used as derogatory term. Hell, even Luigi was being called out here for being a “technobro”.

Primitivism is on the rise. I wish it wasn’t, but it is.

Anyone with a brain know that anti-AI movement started because etsy artists doing porn commissions for a living got replaced, because AI can do a better job on that for free.

And because those etsy artists are incredibly influential in some circles the anti-AI feeling got blown out of proportions.

But making wanna-be entrepreneurs the backbone of the workers movement is not moving the working class anywhere.

The places where I have used the technology works just fine if you know how to use it. For programming it’s incredibly more efficient that going search to stack overflow or github. And to do refractors of your code it can save a lot of time.

In my spare time I also use AI for image recognition as part of a self-hosted security system. And works far better that any other solution.

I can actively choose to use the technology or no. I choose to use it because it makes my job easier. Simple as that.

That’s exactly my point.

AI is just another technology. If some corporation does bad things with it is just bad. If some people do good things with it then is good.

But people charge at AI just because itself. They are against the technology. Not the corporations using it.

I have been given the example “But UH is using AI to deny medical treatment”. What if instead of AI they would have used a Java application? They would be against Java? No, because that argument is not rational.

They are just against AI because etsy artists who made easy money doing porn commission got their hustle broken by AI doing a better job for free. That’s just how the anti-AI movement somehow got mixed in some leftist circles, because etsy artists are too influential in those circles. And their complain got blown out of proportions.

Ah. Here we are. The Schrodinger AI.

People are now behaving like MAGA with the immigrants. At the same same time too bad to do anything useful and also stealing everyone’s jobs.

Not surprised that two identical ways of thinking end up with the same arguments.

At the end, irrational thinkers are all just the same.

Probably also using computers. And I’ve heard that CEO drink water too.

You know that the ones who started anti-AI movement were capitalists, don’t you? Poor capitalists but capitalists that want to live without working out of the profits given by their Intelectual Private Property.

Primitivism are actually working against the interest of the working class. Without technology the workers are the ones who will need to work for more hours to obtain the same level of life quality.

Any proper worker cannot wait for having to do less tedious work, and mess workhours in general thanks to the improvements in technology.

I wont take lessons of primitivists, sorry.

People against technological advancements are against the progress of the working class.

The only chance for people to live good lives is to delegate a great amount of work to the machines. That’s just it.

If you think that primitivism is the answer and got fooled by the anti-AI movement you should be going back to square one. Start reading the basics until you learn that technological progress is not the problem, human greediness and capitalism is.

I looks really good, though.

Why?

Anti-AI is a small primitivism and/or IP protection movement.

It has nothing to do with the working class struggle. Or the right to have proper healthcare.

Perfect moment to ask why are the people in the Bible special if they didn’t had any faith. They literally were supposed to see that supernatural shit, no faith needed.

But now that no supernatural shit is anywhere to be found you must have faith, and adore those who didn’t need that amount of faith.

Not that it would change anything as religion is based in irrational thinking. But it’s always fun to do it with the ones who try to fake some logical arguments into the discussion.