Allison MeloyCan the AI haters give it a rest already? Yes, I know there are concerns, but as a person with a disability, if I didn’t use every tool that was out there because I had concerns about it, I wouldn’t use anything. All this AI hatred is just cutting off our nose to spite our face.
@technocounselor It's not AI that most people I've heard this from hate. It's the fact people insist AI can and should be used for everything everywhere. There's a time and a place. It's a tool, not a support system and not a replacement for people.
@quanin @technocounselor It's also not AI so much as its implementation. The concerns acknowledged in the original post include: boiling the planet and sapping its dwindling water supply; the cognitive atrophy, proven by studies already, that results from using AI to do thinking for you; the privacy and unwarranted surveilence risk inherent in using AI to read your confidential letters etc; and its use to divorce scapital from labour and concentrate wealth.
@quanin @technocounselor You may personally view those concerns, in addition to current AI's unreliability as being less important than the empowerment it offers to describe things to visually impaired people, sometimes inaccurately etc, and that is your perogative, but, given the magnitude of these concerns, I think it is unreasonable to ask people to stop expressing them. A more constructive approach might be to counter-argue how the benefits outweigh them
@JustinMac84 @technocounselor First, I haven't asked anyone to stop expressing anything. Second, I have no idea what original post you're referring to. The original post I replied to said nothing about that and it's not in the thread. Third, you'll need to look elsewhere if what you're after is a view from nowhere.
@quanin Perhaps things have become mis-threaded or I have replied with an inappropriate syntax. I apologise in either case. The OP I was referring towas the exhortation for everyone to stop hating on AI because of its benefits to disabled people.
@JustinMac84 The post in question explicitly stated that the poster is aware there are concerns. However, you do not need to bring those concerns up every single day. They existed yesterday. They exist today. They will exist tomorrow, even if you say nothing. You are no better than the AI all the time everywhere folks, and both of you need to knock it off.
@quanin There we must agree to respectfully disagree. If your house was on fire, I wouldn't put my feet up, wait for a week and then resume my attempts to alert you if you hadn't heard the first time. Microsoft, the Department of Defense, Open AI, Meta and Mosilla aren't waiting. The full-on AI onslaught isn't on pause, so neither can we be. I feel expressing the concerns both to users and companies ramming down our throats regardless, is valid.
@JustinMac84 Instead, my house is not on fire and you're trying to argue it is. Meta's been violating your privacy since before AI existed, and will continue violating your privacy long after AI in its current form is dead. AI is another road to the same destination, not a new journey.
@quanin It's a much faster road and I object to the destination. My argument isn't just on one front, either against privacy violation or against AI. See the costs of proposed data centres being pushed onto local residents, the erosion of copyright, the saturation of creative markets, the effect on empathy and cognitive ability, particularly in the young, the under-representation of gender, race and disability by AI models.
@quanin Best way to "shut us up and get us to give it a rest" is with a sentence that starts "AI is worth sacrificing our privacy, a greater concentration of wealth, making residents pay higher power and water costs, increasing climate damage, risking cognitive ability and undermining livelihoods because..."
@quanin It is only because of massive pushback that Mosilla has done its users the courtesy of allowing its user-base to opt out of AI features...for now. I'm not sure what kind of opposition you would, therefore, be okay with. The only alternative I can see would be, "Hey, remember those worries we had about all the negative effects of AI that we stopped talking about because people asked us to? We're just back to point out that
@quanin they're still here and a lot worse. Do you fancy putting the brakes on a bit or should we go back to being quiet?"
@JustinMac84 Scream at the companies, not the users. The users likely already know, and the ones that don't agree with you are probably using it in those concerning ways to begin with. I cannot do anything about the damage AI is doing to the planet. OpenAI can. Yell at them, not me.
@quanin If there is a demand, the tech will continue to churn it out. If people accept what they're being offered, use the unreliable tech that hampers the ability to think, willingly sacrifice their privacy at an exponentially increasing rate, that will validate the investment. If users refuse to use it or limit their use, if users that want AI to be a good thing but don't want the trade-offs increase the push-back, maybe we'll get somewhere.
@JustinMac84 I have unfortunate news for you. Users, in most cases, aren't the ones creating demand for these things. Companies and governments are. You think I'd even have a GPT account if I didn't suspect employers would make knowledge of how to manipulate AI a hard requirement in two years?
@quanin I don't know how to say this without it sounding like a personal attack, so I hope you will believe that it is not meant as one, but that is complying in advance. You assume that something will happen, therefore pave the way for it, where insufficient uptake might make the eventuality you foresee a non-event. In my view, if making tech compulsary is the only way to get it adopted, it's obviously not very good tech. Good tech should sell itself.
@quanin I return to my original point, as a disabled person, I'm not against the benefits AI *might* bring. I am against the negatives. The more users that are alive to those negatives and refuse to use products saddled with those negatives or push back in other ways, the better the final situation might be.
@JustinMac84 And I return to the original point of the thread. If we refused to use every device that was to our benefit because we had concerns, we'd get absolutely nowhere. People have concerns about video games. Should we stop using those, or should we address and/or disprove those concerns? People have concerns about microwaves. Should we stop using those? People have concerns about wifi. Should we stop using that? The list, she goes on.
@quanin I would argue that those concerns don't outweigh the benefits in the other examples you mentioned. If a Microsoft study, a study by the very company forcing us to accept AI, shows that AI produces cognitive decline, isn't that a whole new level of alarming? I return to my point: show me the benefit that outweighs the very real, tangible proven negatives I have outlined. If there are massive benefits I'm missing, happy to adjust my position. Until then...
@quanin Citation for previously mentioned study. https://www.404media.co/microsoft-study-finds-ai-makes-human-cognition-atrophied-and-unprepared-3/
@JustinMac84 The diference here is I'm not trying to change your mind. You're trying to change mine. And I'm not saying there aren't concerns. I'm saying every single conversation about and around AI does not need to circle back to those concerns. Yes, we know. You told us yesterday. There comes a point when you're just being a broken record.
@quanin I take that point and I certainly don't want to sound like a broken record, but what is the alternative? I would be happy to see one. We are slightly side-tracked by the fact that I wasn't actually trying to change your mind by my OP, but to explain to the poster that originated this thread why we feel we can't "give it a rest" and that I think expecting such is unreasonable.
@quanin psychological studies show that minority influence, to be successful, must be consistent, i.e. it must keep pushing its message. It must also be flexible, hence my assertion that, were I shown sizable benefits that stack against the negatives I've advanced, I would be happy to moderate my position. What is the alternative therefore, to keep trying to raise awareness of the harm AI can and is doing? Those that don't care won't listen, but those that do, might.
@JustinMac84 The alternative is, as I keep telling you, not bringing this up in every single conversation about AI. Yes, those studies exist. And yes, in 6 months we'll see studies that say the opposite. It's the social media mental health debate all over again. You have made what you believe clear. But here's the thing. It doesn't matter whether I agree with what you believe or not, because nothing that was being discussed in the thread you replied to was arguing for or against what you believe. It became about what you believe when you entered the thread.
@quanin I'm not seeing that. The OP told AI haters to give it a rest because of minor benefits disabled people experience. I think we can both agree that I come under what the OP would class as an "AI hater". Therefore the conversation was absolutely relevant to me and I felt it important to point out that its not personal against the users, nor is it a blanket hate, from me anyway, of all things AI, mearly the current implementation thereof.
@JustinMac84 Right now, you sound like an AI hater. Particularly because you literally came into a thread where the AI haters were being asked to knock it off because this literally comes up in every conversation, and you're basically saying no. For the record, because you apparently won't let this go unless I explicitly say it, I agree with you. And in general AI is making most people lazier, even if you remove all of those other concerns. We still don't need to hear about it in every single AI conversation. That's the broken record.
@quanin I'm sorry it comes off that way. I came into the thread with the specific hope, along with you, of moderating the OP's position. You said it wasn't AI people were against, but the idea it should be used for everything and that it shouldn't replace people. I agreed with you on all the points of that post and wanted to add that it isn't AI as a concept I dislike, but its current implementation.
@quanin I hoped to show her that it isn't the benefits she derives I hate, nor her for using them, but the costs attached to those benefits. I can derive those self same benefits, but don't think the cost is worth it. Do I hate the costs? Absolutely! Hate and oppose them! We need to address those costs with the utmost urgency. If that makes me an AI hater, so be it.
@quanin It's interesting that you mention the social media debate because the same companies pushing AI so hard are currently on trial because of their implementation of social media, i.e. that they make it addictive, cognitively harmful, and have been aware of the mental health risks it poses. Australia's recently banned it for children, the UK wants to do likewise. I think social media and AI fears contextualise and relate to one another.
@JustinMac84 Australia's social media ban for children has nothing to do with actually protecting the children, and neither does the UK's. What age verification laws will actually do, and there are actual studies that also prove this, is grant Meta and companies like that a virtual monopoly over the social media space, preventing smaller startups from competing with them. It's the same reason Meta's also completely onboard with repealing section 230 in the US. It's not about protecting people. It's about protecting Meta. And I'm on purpose ignoring the fact that age verification as it currently exists is also a privacy violation waiting to happen.
@quanin Agreed on all points. I believe social media can harm children, but oppose the means being advanced to do it.
@JustinMac84 Everything is harmful if done in the wrong way, including this conversation. There's a reason the expression is, "everything in moderation, including moderation". We don't need to be actively talking about the harms of that everything in every single conversation about or having to do with that everything. We know. We see the same headlines you do. It's up to the social media companies to help people use them the right way, because government won't do that without also being harmful at worst and ineffective at best. We've been trying to protect the children since COPPA. How're we doing?
@quanin As a parent, I'd say it's up to the parents. While I deplore social media companies building their platform to be addictive etc, I believe it is my responsibility as a father to keep my child safe. Social media can't bare the responsibility for every bad post and bad actor.
@JustinMac84 See, that's mostly reasonable. Social media doesn't bare any of the responsibility for a bad actor, short of if that bad actor has done something that warrants their removal (as defined by the social media company's policies, not by your feelings as a parent). Because a lot of the problem is there's a lot of shit we, as a society, don't talk about. So kids end up talking about it to people on social media. Eating disorders? We don't talk about that with people. So into the local Facebook group they go. Anxiety? Not in my house. So onto TikTok they go. Your son might actually be your daughter? Not here. So onto WhatsApp they go. And the problem with saying outright "children are no longer allowed on social media" is now, they don't even have that as an option. So, they can't talk about it at home because that's not talked about here, and they can't talk about it on social media because it's illegal. And, I mean, you were a kid once too. You know damn well the best way to guarantee your kid does someting is to make doing that something as difficult as possible.
@quanin See I think we agree more than we disagree. I was in favour of an outright under 16s social media ban. Then I listened to NPR's Consider this and a report on the NSPCC's position that the approach should be more nuanced and I agree. there are no easy answers around social media other than that platforms should stop harmful attention-grabbing methods. I am opposed to age verification and VPN clampdown to achieve any of it though.
@JustinMac84 And see, I think we need to take about 6 steps back in much the same way with AI. Yes, these are problems. But screaming about them being problems only results in governments coming up with solutions that are as helpful as their age verification measures - some of which, as it happens, also use AI. The only thing that I, as a user can do, to contribute to fixing the problems with AI directly is... well, never using any AI service. And at that point, the benefits I may or may not be extracting from AI are irrelevant because I want to solve those concerns. That, right there? That's how your position reads.
Kitty@quanin @JustinMac84 Oh cuh riste. And heeeeeere we goooooo! Because, you know, the whole reason I use AI to, you know, read things? Is because the people around me do a shitty job of it. And I don't want people, you know, reading my mail. So, like, what do I do then? Make the government hire a special helpyperson to come do it for me? '
@Meepercat @quanin If the other negatives of AI I have cited in this thread don't sway you, this article may be of interest as a succinct reply to your specific question. https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/03/03/what-privacy-as-expected-meta-ray-bans-are-a-privacy-disaster?utm_medium=social&utm_source=mastodon
@JustinMac84 @quanin News briefing: *Everything* is a fucking privacy disaster. Because our data can get stolen. From anywhere. The data your phone company has on you? Yeah. You think that's private? No, sorry. Your medical records? Health insurance info? That data can get stolen too. I'm not worried about my Meta glasses telling me there's... a bottle of Mountain Dew on my desk. Because anyone anywhere who knows anything about me? Knows that. So you, good sir, can take your scare tactics and your bullshit and shove them directly in your left auricular orifice.
@Meepercat @quanin um wow. there's really no need to be rude. I would argue that there's a difference between your data being stolen by an unauthorised bad actor and that bad actor being your service provider. The information is there. It's for you to do what you like with it. You asked a question. I gave my answer. If the answer doesn't concern you, that's absolutely fine. Keep your abuse for a respectful answer to yourself.
@JustinMac84 @Meepercat I think her point is the bad actors are absolutely your service providers. I have 0 doubt my data is being sold, and I have even less doubt my phone company's the one selling it. But I need a phone company, so that's the baseline. But when that's the baseline, the rest is basically just Tuesday.
@quanin @JustinMac84 Ex fucking xactly. The bad actors are everyfuckingwhere now. You can do nothing about it. Scaring people is useless. I need a service provider. To read my printed media. Why? Because having people do it for me isn't helpful. It's actually far less than helpful. The government ain't gonna give me my very own extra special helpy happy helper person to come read my mail for me. Why? Because I ain't entitled.
@Meepercat @quanin I would say that rolling over and accepting that is like being in an abusive relationship. That's what the GDPR is about. That's what the Digital Markets Bill or whatever it's called is about. For me, accepting that privacy has ceased to exist and I might as well accept it is the ultimate, distopian defeat. Personally, however ineffectual, I just won't do that. I respect others' helpless feelings though.
@JustinMac84 @Meepercat Having been on the other side of many of those GDPR conversations thanks to the people who paid me, that's not a solution. Sure, it makes people feel better, but there are so many legal exemptions that mean companies can still hold onto your data for an extended period despite you being asked to be forgotten. For example, the company I worked for at the time, a GDPR request meant we were absolutely required to delete your web content, your user account, any pictures of you that you posted to the site, etc. But we could hold onto your conversation history with us, your financial information, and a few other pieces of information that I can't think of right now because that was nearly two years ago. But hey, they got to ask to be forgotten, so they won, right? No.
@quanin @JustinMac84 To compare that to an abusive relationship is... a piss poor comparison to say the least. Yes, I know my privacy is being violated, but am I going to make my life more difficult by asking my *real* abusers to do more for me that they don't want to do? Please, put that one in your pipe and smoke it, for a good, long, while.
@Meepercat @quanin Of course it's an abusive relationship. This person or entity does things to me that I would rather they didn't do, but I'm powerless against it so I have to let them do whatever they like. If that isn't abuse I really don't know what is. They give me a little bit of what I need and shit on me for the privelidge therefore it's a good deal? That! Is! Abuse! By any metric or measure, that is absolutely abuse.
@Meepercat @quanin People are trying to push back with those bills and laws. I believe we have to make our voices heard, to curb the use of technologies that abuse us, otherwise we give up all freedoms. I just can't do that. I respect those that feel they have no choice, but would encourage them that isn't the case and to assert themselves against their abusers.
@quanin @Meepercat The particularly disturbing part of that article, though, is that it's not just data you chose to share being abused, your device is collecting data from you and doing God knows what with it without being asked. I think this is unacceptable and would push back by all possible means against such practices. Judging by her extreme reaction, perhaps that makes me weird, who knows?
@JustinMac84 @Meepercat Like I said. Basically Tuesday. You don't even need a Facebook account for Meta to track you. It's everywhere now. Getting hot and bothered about one component of that everywhere is not very productive.
@quanin @JustinMac84 Exactly. It's Tuesday. Everything tracks our everywhere. My phone probably knows when I'm taking a poop because I'm reading the news.
@quanin @Meepercat Change won't happen overnight. You can't push back against everything all at once, though goodness knows I try. But you can push back against the latest incursions. You can raise awareness and hope that others will push back too. Some will, most won't. That's how it goes. Hopefully the little pushes will add up to something, maybe they won't. Bottom line is, I'd rather do something than nothing.
@JustinMac84 @Meepercat I would respectfully submit that that might very well be your addiction, my friend.
@quanin @Meepercat An interesting point of view. Not sure how tongue in cheek you're being. I want to be free. I want not to be abused. I want to suffer as little abuse as possible, for that to be the case for all of us. If that is an addiction and, honestly, I don't accept that, since I define addiction as something that harms you, so be it.
@JustinMac84 @quanin You ever been told to find another place to live by people who have prevented you from getting a work history or a rental history? You ever been called a piece of shit? Threatened with institutionalization? Those things are abuse. Go look up the definition of abuse before you start spouting off on what abuse is.
@Meepercat I am sorry you have suffered those things, but the existence of one type of abuse doesn't preclude the existence of another, nor does it mean there aren't degrees of abuse. that you have suffered those things isn't my fault and I see no reason for you to be offensive or to take it out on me.
@JustinMac84 @Meepercat Addictions can also be harmful to other people, even if they don't directly harm you. The fact that your position is being seen as a choice between a consentual relationship that you see as abusive and a non-consentual relationship that someone else sees as abusive... that's the harm. You're literally asking them to prefer the non-consentual abuse. That may not be what you're intending, but if it needs to be pointed out to you, it's also because you can't see that. Addiction blinds people.
@quanin @Meepercat that's a mis-representation of my argument. I'm not saying that and I think you know that. Even you acknowledge it as abuse. I myself, grudgingly, use the same services she does. Doesn't mean I have to like it, nor that I have to take it lying down, nor that I don't use other alternatives that I hope aren't abusive wherever and whenever possible.
I literally did not say she should prefer being abused one way to another.
@JustinMac84 @Meepercat I mean, I used your wording, but I don't agree with it. Which is my entire point. You define abuse the way you do and that's fine. But now you're arguing against someone else's definition of abuse, and that's harmful.
@quanin @Meepercat The ideal is obviously no abuse at all.
@quanin Yes, my client gives the originating post of this conversation as "Can the AI haters give it a rest already." I take that to be a request for people to stop expressing negative things about AI. I think, given the magnitude of those concerns, it is unreasonable to expect people to "give it a rest". So, to have you tagged first in the reply was my mistake, for which I apologies, but I was expanding on what you said to say that it's not AI as a concept I hate.
@JustinMac84 @quanin I can't even pull the original post, so thank you for providing context. And now I will go back to being a fly on the wall.
@JustinMac84 @quanin If the post comes from a protected account, it can't be reposted. If they were referencing another post, you'd have to repost the original for me to see it.