I'm seeing this tendency among *some people* on here to make this a very black and white issue. Which is a common reaction when there are significant stakes, which there are. But it is seldom constructive.

In the AI hype movement we also find:
- Scam artists trying to make a quick buck
- Tech enthusiasts who stared into the eyes of Glyph's basilisk and became deluded, thinking it is making them faster c.f. https://mastodon.social/@glyph/116220257549451634
...

- Various professionals who have extreme FOMO and don't understand how everyone else is making LLMs work well (they aren't)

...and more.

I hope you see that I am not saying these groups are somehow excused in thwir behavior from not being motivated by fascism—the bar is not quite so low.

But understanding who these people are, means we can appeal to them, convince them, build a counter-movement and a space to land for ex-converts.

That's what I'd like us all to do.

Caveat: you absolutely get to rant about shitty AI-using people in your life, and will hear no complaint from me about that. I will probably agree. And social pressure is also an important factor.

If we want to win, though, and not move into the "AI" dystopia we are slowly approximating, we need a realistic approach for that part of the work too!

Another way to phrase this, which may be stepping on some toes, is: If the undercurrent of "and I'm so good for not touching AI and shunning everything related" in your posting bout "AI", it starts to look like it's more about you feeling good about yourself and signaling social group membership, than working towards real solutions.

I am upset at and think AI boosters should be held accountable. But I also feel sorry for a lot of the less powerful deluded tag-alongs out there.

We cannot fight fascism on fascism's terms. We cannot win over fascism by picking the opposing team on the playing field designed by fascism. "For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change."

And with that, we're getting closer to this again: https://mas.to/@nielsa/116233438577511918

I love this about the serendipity of the fediverse: this paper by @olivia et al appeared on my timeline right after I finished the above thread. I wholeheartedly agree with the aspirations they set out in the conclusion: https://scholar.social/@olivia/116357078510216125

In their terms, my take could be something like: avoidance purity is incompatible with increasing AI literacy, and increasing AI literacy is the best way to drag people out of LLM delusion/FOMO.

A good introduction to AI literacy is Dr. Fatima's video: https://youtu.be/y85nqc2zm7M?is=tcS3-png_K5DDm_a

I think she's a bit too willing to look for productive use cases for LLMs in modes of use I think are untenable, and I think she's a bit too one-sided on the effect of social pressure, but it's a good primer on AI literacy and e.g. the negative correlation between AI literacy and AI adoption. As a start of a series, I find it interesting.

Edit: beware: more criticism of the video: https://scholar.social/@olivia/116359187901534566