Since being replaced by AI is inevitable, it would make more sense for us to be figuring out how to make that world work instead of swinging swords at the ocean.
People in the early 20th century could have openly and loudly refused to ride in cars, but they didn’t, and people today won’t refuse to accept AI in enough numbers to stop AI. It doesn’t HAVE to be inevitable, but it is anyway.
Recently, a thread cropped up about indie devs putting “No GenAI used” stamps in their pages, and the amount of people questioning the value of the initiative or outright criticizing it is absurd.
People saying disingenuous things like “It’s just another tool, I didn’t hear anyone complaining about the brush on photoshop”, and “games already used AI, are you also against procedural generation?” or the ridiculous “I need AI to make things. Why are you all against me learning and growing as a person?”
There is a vocal, often severely technically-uninformed crowd that strongly likes GenAI, doesn’t care about and refuses to understand the harm it causes, and needs everyone to be like them so they can stop receiving backlash for contributing to creator exploitation.
The problem isn’t opposition. It’s spreading misinformation, framing critics as luddites, refusing to acknowledge their misunderstandings about the relevant technologies and how they impact others. There’s no “two sides” to it when one of the sides thinks 2 + 2 is 5.
Sure, but that means everyone who disagrees on that point is arguing in bad faith, which is not possible. People argue what they think is right, and change their minds over time. Everyone was wrong about something at one point.
Just because they have faulty logic doesnt make them bad faith. You have faulty logic in this case, should I assume you are bad faith?
This attitude of “only one side follows facts and it just happens to be mine” is so amnesic, you never were always on the right side.
that means everyone who disagrees on that point is arguing in bad faith
It doesn’t, that’s not my point. Bad faith implies they’re lying despite knowing better, which isn’t what I described. I never claimed bad faith, I said they’re factually wrong in this instance, and that their discourse is harmful regardless of their beliefs.
Just as not all anti-vaxers argue in bad faith, but are wrong nonetheless. Like many other groups who honestly and earnestly defend(ed) everything from racial segregation to genocide. I’m not saying these groups and the harm they cause are equivalent—this should be obvious, but I’m saying it anyway.
Everyone was wrong about something at one point.
When one being wrong hurts innocent people, something has to be done. I expect folks in aforementioned groups to stop being wrong about those things at some point. Otherwise, it’s up to the rest of us to act to protect the victims, not the moral standing of the aggressors because they’re sincere.
This attitude of “only one side follows facts and it just happens to be mine” is so amnesic, you never were always on the right side.
That’s a gross misrepresentation of my position, which I hope is born of misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on the topic. I tried to clear up any misunderstandings. If you don’t think they’re wrong or causing harm, I’m willing to have a conversation about this to explain it, if you want.
Because companies won’t. For people who actually want to make things happen, the question is how to do it and not how wrong it is that somebody else isn’t doing it.
Since being replaced by AI is inevitable, it would make more sense for us to be figuring out how to make that world work instead of swinging swords at the ocean.
It doesn’t have to be inevitable. You, a gamer, can openly and loudly refuse to buy games that are made with the use of generative AI
People in the early 20th century could have openly and loudly refused to ride in cars, but they didn’t, and people today won’t refuse to accept AI in enough numbers to stop AI. It doesn’t HAVE to be inevitable, but it is anyway.
Recently, a thread cropped up about indie devs putting “No GenAI used” stamps in their pages, and the amount of people questioning the value of the initiative or outright criticizing it is absurd.
People saying disingenuous things like “It’s just another tool, I didn’t hear anyone complaining about the brush on photoshop”, and “games already used AI, are you also against procedural generation?” or the ridiculous “I need AI to make things. Why are you all against me learning and growing as a person?”
There is a vocal, often severely technically-uninformed crowd that strongly likes GenAI, doesn’t care about and refuses to understand the harm it causes, and needs everyone to be like them so they can stop receiving backlash for contributing to creator exploitation.
You mean people took opposing sides on a topic on a debate forum? Color me surprised.
The problem isn’t opposition. It’s spreading misinformation, framing critics as luddites, refusing to acknowledge their misunderstandings about the relevant technologies and how they impact others. There’s no “two sides” to it when one of the sides thinks 2 + 2 is 5.
Sure, but that means everyone who disagrees on that point is arguing in bad faith, which is not possible. People argue what they think is right, and change their minds over time. Everyone was wrong about something at one point.
Just because they have faulty logic doesnt make them bad faith. You have faulty logic in this case, should I assume you are bad faith?
This attitude of “only one side follows facts and it just happens to be mine” is so amnesic, you never were always on the right side.
It doesn’t, that’s not my point. Bad faith implies they’re lying despite knowing better, which isn’t what I described. I never claimed bad faith, I said they’re factually wrong in this instance, and that their discourse is harmful regardless of their beliefs.
Just as not all anti-vaxers argue in bad faith, but are wrong nonetheless. Like many other groups who honestly and earnestly defend(ed) everything from racial segregation to genocide. I’m not saying these groups and the harm they cause are equivalent—this should be obvious, but I’m saying it anyway.
When one being wrong hurts innocent people, something has to be done. I expect folks in aforementioned groups to stop being wrong about those things at some point. Otherwise, it’s up to the rest of us to act to protect the victims, not the moral standing of the aggressors because they’re sincere.
That’s a gross misrepresentation of my position, which I hope is born of misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on the topic. I tried to clear up any misunderstandings. If you don’t think they’re wrong or causing harm, I’m willing to have a conversation about this to explain it, if you want.
And why does it fall on the consumers and workers to figure out how to not exploit people, instead of the companies currently doing it?
Because companies won’t. For people who actually want to make things happen, the question is how to do it and not how wrong it is that somebody else isn’t doing it.