←back to thread

I Am An AI Hater

(anthonymoser.github.io)
443 points BallsInIt | 1 comments | 27 Aug 25 19:10 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dpoloncsak ◴[27 Aug 25 20:23 UTC] No.45044706[source]▶
> Critics have already written thoroughly about the environmental harms, the reinforcement of bias and generation of racist output, the cognitive harms and AI supported suicides, the problems with consent and copyright...

This paragraph really pisses me off and I'm not sure why.

> Critics have already written thoroughly about the environmental harms

Didn't google just prove there is little to no environmental harm, INCLUDING if you account for training?

> the reinforcement of bias and generation of racist output

Im uneducated here, honestly. I don't ask a lot of race-based questions to my LLMS I guess

>the cognitive harms and AI supported suicides

There is constant active rhetoric around the sycophancy, and ways to reduce this, right? OpenAI just made a new benchmark specifically for this. I won't deny it's an issue but to act like it's being ignored by the industry is a miss completely.

>the problems with consent and copyright

This is the best argument on the page imo, and even that is highly debated. I agree with "AI is performing copyright infringement" and see constant "AI ignores my robots.txt". I also grew up being told that ANYTHING on the internet was for the public, and copyright never stopped *me* from saving images or pirating movies.

Then the rest touches on ways people will feel about or use AI, which is obviously just as much conjecture as anything else on the topic. I can't speak for everyone else, and neither can anyone else.

replies(15): >>45044737 #>>45044796 #>>45044852 #>>45044866 #>>45044914 #>>45044917 #>>45044933 #>>45044982 #>>45045000 #>>45045057 #>>45045130 #>>45045208 #>>45045212 #>>45045303 #>>45051745 #
simianwords ◴[27 Aug 25 20:45 UTC] No.45045000[source]▶
Don't try to argue using logic against a person who came to their position primarily through emotions!

All these points are just trying to forcefully legitimise his hatred.

replies(1): >>45045192 #
1. the_other ◴[27 Aug 25 20:59 UTC] No.45045192[source]▶
The article doesn’t say that. The article says the author wont do the work of explaining their position to the reader. It doesn’t say they havn’t done that work for themselves. I read it as saying they had done some undisclosed amount of work informing themselves such that they could reach to their position: thinking, reading articles, etc.

Also, I think their lean towards a political viewpoint is worth some attention. The point is a bit lost in the emotional ranting, which is a shame.

(To be fair, I liked the ranting. I appreciated their enjiyment of the position they have reached. I use LLMs but I worry about the energy usage and I’m still not convinced by the productivity argument. Their writing echoed my anxiety and then ran with it into glee, which I found endearing.)