Skip Navigation

PSA: lemmy.dbzer0.com labels anyone who shows any dislike for AI as a "right-wing neoliberal"

They will also delete any comments that complain about AI at all, even though there is no rule against it.

/--edit--/
After second look, that's not entirely true, but they definitely have a trigger finger for it and leave plenty of other "off-topic" comments.

Considering the amount of posts deleted, it should have just been locked instead of nuking comments with a negative view of AI

Here's the thread in the screenshot:
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/43426671/18476015

Also, here you can see other's seem to think this was an attempt to silence dissent (though, I don't think that this coming from drag is a great point for it):
https://lemmy.ca/post/43313594

/--/

Just look at this completely insane comment from an instance admin:

115 comments
  • Ugh, that's disappointing. The screendumped list of arguments that "leftists are per definition pro-AI" is reductive and cherrypicked. I guess they can get into the sea with the rest of the "AI" bros.

    To be perfectly clear, I don't think the copyright system is anywhere near perfect, especially not the way it has been expanded to benefit corporations rather than actual creators. But it is really the only available legal protection against the gross ethical infringement on human artistry that the "AI" corpos have committed to tran their models.

    I'm as black and red as they come — as well as an artist and arts teacher — and that litany of BS arguments does not represent me in the least. I would and have made art without certainty of compensation. That doesn't make my art or anyone else's up for grabs to create piss poor replacements for our skill and craft.

    "GenAI" is not a threat to human creativity in itself— it only reproduces lowest common denominator results from the material it's trained upon. But the fact that indiscriminate morons actually think those statistically miscalculated songs, texts or images are as good as what people make? That's the real existential crisis.

    • I completely share your sentiments. Especially about copyright. It's a really shitty and fucked up system, but it's the only tool available for people to use for protection.

      For AI, it's important to repudiate all of the bad uses of AI so that we can distill out any possible good uses for it.

      • In terms of "AI", I find the scare quotes important because we absolutely do not have actual AI, only a misleading hype phrase to sell a miserably underperforming product. I'm with Ted Chiang that what we do have is applied statistics.

        But I agree that there are reasonable, constructive uses. Primarily in, yes, statistics and language research, but that's not where we see the technology making its most hyped inroads. Probably because they're neither sexy or profitable enough to return the investments that have gone into developing these contraptions.

        The most infuriating thing to me is that the companies behind are willing to not just steal creatives' work in the mad dash for profitability, but also diminish the standing of our crafts and raze our already limited fields of income to do so.

        And then some tw—t on an online forum decides that """AI""" is the required tool for a socialist revolution? Excuse me while I go punch a wall.

  • Hey y'all, dbzer0 admin there. We're not anti Genai as a technology in general but we're absolutely anti-corporate genai. I believe the only valid way to use genai is if all weights are open source and all output is in the commons. I generally hate the current techbro Ai bubble and we have no stake in it. However I will defend proles using genai for their own entertainment as much as I will defend proles using piracy likewise. We think the world is would be better without copyrights. AMA.

    • I believe that as it currently stands, AI is too closely tied to big corporations, especially for the average person. So, without specifically including the caveat of "this thing was generated using an open source, locally run model" or something along those lines, it's reasonable to assume it was generated by using big corp-run AI giving them more data and power over the individuals. I also think giving too much credence to AI gives the big techbro AI bubble more value and power. Additionally, AI makes it exceedingly easy for low-quality or nefarious content to proliferate and effectively choke-out thoughtful content, similar to how misinformation/disinformation takes over factual information. Like I mentioned, I agree that 'AI is just a tool', but that doesn't exclude it from being extremely frequently abused, which then puts a sour taste in my mouth. I could go on for why I tend to dislike AI in general while acknowledging what possible benefits there may be for it. None of my reasoning is founded on any of the claims db0 users were trying to force onto me.

      According to your fellow admin and other very loud and rude users from db0 (whose behaviors have been validated by the same admin), that makes me a "right-wing neoliberal". Instead of engaging in a discussion about it, those people instead berated me and kept pushing the same idea.

      /--edit--/

      To add to this, I think a big contention point is that there is no rule against stating that you don't like AI or reasons to dislike AI, but the user's hostility were a reaction as if that were the case. If there were an instance or community rule for that, then these reactions would be understandable (though, still an overreaction IMO).

    • It's weird to see the doublethink of people here.

      "We don't want corporations to control everything! They have too much power!"

      "Exactly, we should ignore their requests and the copyright system they made!"

      "Yeah! Copyright doesn't help us! Pirate everything!"

      "We can use their tools to dismantle them! Including AI!"

      "Woah, I don't know if I actually agree with copyright being abolished... Maybe copyright is actually good when companies get to abuse the laws they made... I'm for copyright abolishment in everything but using tools."

      How much do you want to bet that the people who think being Anti-AI is somehow revolutionary, shares memes and media without permission of the copyright holder of the images and media? Disney would love to enforce that sharing a meme with any of their IP is a crime and you must pay to do it.

      The hypocrisy of these people never gets old. They'll advocate for piracy and soulseek but the moment you ask a open source, single instance AI thing to make a meme, its suddenly an affront to mankind.

    • We think the world is would be better without copyrights.

      Why on earth would you think a lack of copyright would be better for anyone (especially the labourers who actually create shit) while we all still have to live in this capitalist hellscape? Maybe in a perfect world we could do without it; but we sure as hell do not live in a perfect world.

      • Because copyrights are a form of enclosure and they are there to benefit the rich. It's part of the hellscape and their primary purpose is to introduce artificial scarcity so that human culture can be monetized for their benefit.

      • Ideas can’t be owned, and copyright and intellectual property are capitalist nonsense. If you don’t want to share an idea, don’t bring it into the world. Because once you do, it collectively belongs to the human condition.

  • Thank you for the validation. I’ve been really depressed lately with all the problems I’ve had with my government and my workplace dumping me and just everything else, and the hostility I had been getting from some sides of Lemmy was really exacerbating things. I also want to reiterate my point that some Lemmings don’t get which is that propaganda is still propaganda even if the views and message are both morally correct; it was the use of AI as an imitation of an honest human messenger that I considered “disinfo” or at the very least disingenuous. A lot of other Lemmings also thought my gripe was singularly with how AI art steals (“pirates” as one critic put it) from human artists to make its images, which is not the particular condemnation I was making in that case. Again, I really appreciate the support.

  • Wow that's silly of them, they can as well add the label Luddite.

    I use AI at work and it does an mediocre/acceptable job when I find the right prompt.

    The technology is still in its infancy and we still need to spend decades learning how to get something out of it.

115 comments