Post

I've started to notice that many of the most "critical"/"skeptical"/"practical" takes on AI are so steeped in pro-AI framing that they immediately give away the plot. They can't say a sideways word without first rolling out platitudes as if to calm the pro-AI before the mildest take.

The problem is that this framing grants these platitudes validity. "AI is here to stay, but...", "AI is changing [x] industry...", "AI is useful in [x] context" & so on and it's so tired and contrite that we're bought into the framing. Most recently I saw "AI amplifies what's already there"...

And I can't help but just bark at that. Because what the fuck do you mean, amplified? It's a mediocrity machine at best, so what it adds is more *slop*. I suppose if you're already slinging slop it looks multiplicative instead of additive.

"AI is changing the way we work", why? How? And for who's fucking benefit? Because the work output sucks and y'all are mostly just firing people so who the fuck asked for this?

We lost the fuckin plot and ceded too much ground because it seems like we're unable to effectively argue against the very existence of frontier LLMs. The capitalists don't give a shit about water, power, productivity, or any of that shit. If we're fighting within their frame we're losing everytime.

Like they're totally fine letting these things literally talk people into killing themselves and you think we're going to put a dent in it by talking about the fucking impact it has on the planet? You lost before you opened your mouth.