Post

this is the really ineffective head-in-the-sand reaction a lot of folks on Bluesky tend to have if you talk about any harm reduction-based approach to the reality that millions of people are using AI tools today. The current approach to critiquing AI is obviously not working, but they don't care.

Bluesky itself *exists* because people broadly understood that social media then, as with AI now, was having a wide variety of negative effects on society. So teaching people about less damaging approaches had a lot of value and has been effective in giving millions of people better alternatives.

By contrast, scolding people with moralizing about their choices, especially when *all of us are using tech from companies that have already carried out harms as serious as genocide* is ineffective, and pushes them to the welcoming arms of fascist tech companies who will be nice to them instead.

I agree with the intellectual substance of virtually every common critique of AI. And it's very clear that turning those critiques into a competition about who can frame them in the most scathing way online has done *zero* to slow down adoption, even if much of that is due to default bundling.

At what point are folks going to try literally any other tactic than condescending rants? Does it matter that LLM apps are at the top of virtually every app store nearly every day because individual people are choosing to download them, and the criticism hasn't been effective in slowing that?

It’s not for lack of criticism. It’s the total lack of information about what any tech actually does. People think LLMs are just more of the same; unaware that it’s explicitly not, explicitly incapable of fulfilling the label “AI”. The tech info sphere is dominated by corporations & grifters.

This is not helped by the fact that LLMs are perhaps the first technology that you become LESS acquainted with the more you use it. People who have used LLMs more than a little bit have insane theories about them - ESPECIALLY people in tech! The only way to understand them is to never use them.

I think I get what you’re going for here, but what it‘s doing is demonstrating humans have an implicit bias to assume anything appearing to use language is intelligent. It’s especially bad for credulous people, those without critical thinking skills, or those w/a financial incentive to believe.

0 reposts0 likes

www.wired.com/story/the-le... "Jan 25, 2025 The Less People Know About AI, the More They Like It" "People with less knowledge about AI are actually more open to using the technology. We call this difference in adoption propensity the #LowerLiteracyHigherReceptivity link."

wired.comThe Less People Know About AI, the More They Like ItYou might assume that tech-savvy people are the most open to using AI, but research suggests it's actually those who are least familiar with it.