I think what makes me so incredibly angry about AI is that it’s not there to reduce *your* work. It’s there to reduce the amount of labor that CEOs have to pay for.

There’s no world in which doing *your* job a little faster is worth the trillions of dollars in investment; this is entirely predicated on eliminating working class jobs.

And *no one* should be excited about that, except for billionaires.

It’s the same anger I feel whenever I see someone calling themselves an “entrepreneur.” To me, that word will always mean “I look for ways to exploit labor and customers, so that I can personally enrich myself at the expense of others.”

It is an anathema to everything I believe in.

@krusynth It's been interesting experiencing the mad dash to AI while working for an older company that's filled with gunshy nerds like myself who worry about the efficacy, the security, the stability, etc.

What I've found when it's approached from that perspective, the footprint is much smaller and it's almost universally around making annoying things easier for the staff, it doesn't serve the C-level in the slightest beyond making the staff happier.

That's ultimately what makes *me* so mad about AI. If you look at what tools we've implemented, they're mobility aids disguised as AI. I'm terrible at note-taking because I can't focus on both writing and listening at the same time. So now I can flip a switch and have something reliably take notes for me and I can concentrate on the meeting at hand.

It makes me angry that there are all these mad cash grabs that burn half a forest to make a single person more billionaire than another billionaire when it could be used to just make life easier for people.

@krusynth Honestly I suspect it’s more than that. I wonder how many people have turned AI into a way to scam or commit fraud, like say, artificially generating views of ads for advertisers. Have these companies come up with ways to prevent that sort of abuse?
@krusynth Frankly even the billionaires excited about AI are being shortsighted, but I guess that’s generally true.

@krusynth It's not even that, because that isn't going to happen.

What it's for is to devalue human work.

The statistical facts are clear: AI has not reduced workforce. AI has not reduced work hours. AI has not increased productivity.

But AI has devalued human work.

That is what the exploiter class is paying for.

@krusynth I’m still mad about datacenters burning fossil fuels and using potable water. The amount of energy AI uses to be 60% wrong is criminal.

@skry @krusynth This. While I can (and do!) complain about the quality of "AI", that's really irrelevant because at the current environmental costs it doesn't matter if it can do everything they claim - the future of everyone alive and of upcoming generations is too high a price to pay.

I'm saddened that this just doesn't seem to be a view most people recognize. They assume that if they aren't paying there's "no harm" in using it.

@krusynth

*cough* military use *cough*
...needs a bit investment from the public before its good enough to handle the poor masses during climat and refugeecrisis and the coming western socialcreditsystem...

@krusynth

And here we are chucklefucking our way right into it like "oh cool duurrrrrrr"

Even DuckDuckGo has ai fuck.