this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
617 points (99.7% liked)
Fuck AI
8774 readers
1824 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
Rules:
- Relevant posts only.
- No bigotry.
- No misinformation.
- No NSFW/NSFL content without being labeled NSFW or being in an appropriately-labeled spoiler tag.
- This isn't a place to talk about the cons and (supposed) pros of AI for different use cases. This is /c/fuck_ai .
- Especially no AI advocacy.
- No AI-generated content. If you want to post examples of AI failing hillariously, there are other communities for that like !ArtificialIgnorance@lemmy.ca .
- Venting is part of the purpose of this community, but don't aim frustration or accusations at other users.
- These rules are a living document that may change in the future.
You can help the mod team by making your reports detailed.
Effective reports:
- "The third image is a well-known anti-semitic trope"
- "Claiming that 'agentic AI' can outperform humans at all jobs is misinformation"
Less effective reports:
- "Breaks rules"
- "Misinformation"
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Might be only Germany for the moment, but I wouldn't be surprised if you see more jurisdictions ruling this way, e.g. there's a case in Canada at the moment where it claimed a musician was a sex offender.
And locally, in Australia we don't have the US style "safe harbor" protections, so companies are already liable for content shown on their sites regardless of who creates it. If courts already won't accept "But somebody else wrote that" as a defence, they won't accept it when it's the companies own products producing it.