this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
471 points (99.6% liked)

Fuck AI

4969 readers
1296 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.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] VampirePenguin@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago

Gen AI and the people behind it are profoundly anti-human. They want everyone dead, diminished, obsolete, and defeated. Refuse AI features anywhere and everywhere they are placed.

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 42 points 1 day ago

More like wealthy will use anything possible to seize control of everything.

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 153 points 1 day ago (2 children)

"The point of AI is to permit the wealthy to access the benefits of the talented, while preventing the talented from accessing the benefits of wealth." [Paraphrased, I didn't remember who originally said it.]

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Swap "talented' with 'labour' and 'AI' with 'force' that's been our history since civilization started, at least.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If that wasn't the case even before Ai, ai just made it more blatant.

[–] regedit@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

AI accelerated it, is all. The wealthy will kill as many people as they can should they ever develop the means to live forever, which is their end goal: immortality. Their healthcare (having money to go wherever and pay whatever) is preventative while everyone else's is reactionary, and only if some middleman is onboard with the doctor's medical prognosis. Only those able to serve them with their labor are desirable. Everyone not useful to them should go off and die. This is why they fight healthcare for all so hard.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Aren't these the same people that keep saying we need to have more babies, though?

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 22 hours ago

they know, billionaires cant survive without security, or servents.

[–] regedit@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

Those are the billionaires that want to enslave us in their theocratic breeding camps. But only the ones with good health.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 36 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Cottom cuts to the heart of an issue that both AI doomers and AI boosters seem to take for granted: that an AI-dominated future isn’t inevitable.

Given the development plateau tech companies seem to be running into these days, a future built on large language models (LLMs) is far from a lock. (Consider, for example, the fact that after a very recent December update, ChatGPT couldn’t even generate an accurate alphabet poster for preschoolers.)
...
Cottom points to the historical record — for example, the fact that chattel slavery was at one time seen as a preordained fact of life, a myth spread by the wealthiest members of that bygone age.

I like this comparison

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (3 children)

ChatGPT couldn’t even generate an accurate alphabet poster for preschoolers.)

And it's already trained on the whole of human knowledge. That's what gets me about LLM's. If it's already trained on the entirety of human knowledge, and still can't accurately complete these basic tasks, how do these companies intend to fulfill their extravagant promises?

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 22 points 1 day ago

They don't. It's a scam.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 7 points 1 day ago

BUILD MORE DATACENTRES!

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's trained on human writing, not knowledge. It has no actual understanding of meaning or logical connections, just an impressive store of knowledge about language patterns and phrases that occur in the context of the prompt and the rest of the answer. It's very good at sounding human, and that's one hell of an achievement.

But its lack of actual knowledge becomes apparent in things like the alphabet poster example or a history professor asking a simple question and getting a complicated answer that sounds like a student trying to seem like they read the books in question but misses the one-sentence-answer that someone who actually knows the books would give. Source, the example I cited being about a third into the actual article

If the best it can do is sound like a student trying to bullshit their way through, then that's probably the most accurate description: It has been trained to sound knowledgeable, but it's actually just a really good bullshitter.

Again, don't get me wrong, as a language processing and generation tool, I think it's an amazing demonstration of what is possible now. I just don't like seeing people ascribe any technical understanding to a hyperintelligent parrot.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago

It has been trained to sound knowledgeable, but it's actually just a really good bullshitter.

So just like their creators.

[–] aarRJaay@lemmy.world 32 points 1 day ago

Hahaha. The wealthy are using THEIR WEALTH to seize control of everything. Always have, always will.

[–] saejima@ani.social 48 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I thought they were going to use AI to share their wealth /s

[–] LupertEverett@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

So not only are they pissing on us and lacking the decency to call it rain, but now they're teaching machines to do it, too?!

A common mistake, as it were.

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 48 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 41 points 1 day ago (2 children)

She's not just saying that the wealthy are trying to seize control — she also discusses how they're leveraging the rhetoric of inevitable AI in order to build the foundations for future control. Significantly, she identifies this attempt as being driven by anxiety that the wealthy feel about their future control, and discusses strategies for resisting that.

What she's saying is far from obvious; I've seen so many anti-AI, anti-capitalist folk unwittingly perpetuating the rhetorical agenda of the wealthy by accepting the notion that a society ran by super advanced AI is inevitable.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The wealthy feel anxiety about their future control? Why would they need to feel that?

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 15 points 1 day ago

Because they ran out of things to distract the masses, plus they need the plebs in order to maintain their little fiefdoms.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah I call bullshit on that.

Automation is inevitable, doesn’t mean decision making will be.

Having fully automated factory that churns out 100 cars a day is not dystopian if you can have people able to configure that number.

The dystopian part is having only a few with “admin access”.

Call bullshit on what, sorry? I'm not clear on whether you're calling bullshit on the professor in the article, or the wealthy assholes who the professor is critiquing

[–] 20cello@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago
[–] Zier@fedia.io 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

From 1996-2007 Windows users already told the world that 'AI Assistants' can just fuck off. It was called Clippy, and everyone hated it! We will crush you just like we crushed Clippy.

[–] hexagonwin@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Zier@fedia.io 2 points 22 hours ago

That's correct, Clippit was it's official name, but the World renamed him Clippy.