i don’t feel compelled to join a platform for the mere privilege of having my blog posts co-hosted in the nazi bar, with shitty default css

“avoid it being challenged” dear lord. if only internet forum threads had some kind of button that would allow you to insert whatever half-baked disguised-as-a-policy-suggestion reaction one has directly into the thread. maybe then those that suffer the worst from Jubileebrain could utilize that to spew forth all their intellectual capabilities’ worth without doing themselves the disgrace of demanding dissidents put up their dukes

but then it wouldn’t be lemmy now would it

for you in particular, let’s permanently rectify that situation

i don’t know how i could have possibly been clearer that i don’t want the disjointed ramblings of debatecreatures in my inbox, but i know things like “consent” might be a foreign concept to such folk

itt: 100 billion lemmings see the phrase “i’m not going to debate you” and immediately take up arms and move to debate positions, so as to maximize the insufferability of the platform writ large

my lemmy client is a humanities app because on it i learn how dedicated people are to completely missing the entire point

somehow i think furries will be disqualified from the vanguard, so probably not

sorry but i shave everything from the eyebrows down. i must remain buttery smooth to retain the optimal aerodynamic attributes

as someone who is generally anti-copyright, i think it’s telling that while there’s several very good arguments to be made against copyright (they encourage IP hoarding, they strip rights and profits from creators, they enable legal threats against people making derivative or inspired work), the one promptfans continuously go for is the most shallow. “copyright is bad because it’s the thing preventing me personally from downloading everything i want for free, even though i already do that all the time with no repercussions whatsoever”

some parts intriguing, but mostly disappointing. several chunks of the text felt AI-generated. no fewer than 34 “it’s not X but Y”'s, by my count, and the out-of-nowhere typographies / tables definitely smell of slop. and obviously, the images definitely were. (can’t even be bothered to fix the typos in photoshop? why make a fake poster for The Stepford Wives??)

some notes:

• i’m not entirely convinced the revulsion response in women can be explained entirely as a reflective recognition of the subjected female self. maybe it’s also because AI art is entirely bland and/or fuck ugly

• some reproductive labors, in the Marxist-feminist sense, are getting subsumed by AI, sure, but they’re largely the ones that already got subsumed by the computer. we had pagers had scheduling and appointment reminders in the 80’s. about the only thing an LLM can do that our previous tech couldn’t is the customer service / “emotional labor” part, albeit poorly. and the other labors are non-optional – my laundry actually does have to go in the dryer, and no matter how many plastic pictures of clean clothes i generate, they can’t actually go in my closet.

• speaking of, the article appears to use a mangled paraphrase of that Joanna Maciejewska tweet (“I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes”), and then attributes it to “AI enthusiasts” (ew).

• the article notes that reproductive labor is coded feminine and that the assistants that (attempt to) do this labor are designed female, with feminine voices and affects, despite being, y’know, robots. and not women. the next step to me would be to note that this isn’t just reflecting the subjectification of the female and the designation of women to a particular labor class, but actually aiding to construct and reproduce the subject of “female” itself too. maybe throw some Butler in there. but we just breeze right past this. no third-wave? i don’t see any feminist arguments past the 80’s in here

• the typography of wives is total bullshit. “The Open-Source Wife” fuuuuucccckk offfff. but. BUT. i do think there is something correct in there about xAI/Grok/Ani basically being the modern adaptation of Vivian James

• there’s an argument that obviously used to be about AI art, and got transmogrified into a nonsense concept, bordering on colorless green ideas.

Women’s labor is being extracted, automated, and sold back without credit.

• the nonsense below it about “alignment” clearly intends to imply that the machines are only faking being our friends / submissive wives(!!1!).

• but this is okay because women are uniquely suited to interface with AI! this is because (all) women (innately) communicate with the goal of building relationships (female) instead of the utilitarian (manly) execution of transactions (male). there’s an odd essentialist undercurrent that’s not really being challenged here, despite the fact that that would render “female robots” impossible

• “outsource-maxxing” fuuuuuucuk youuuuuuu

• the conclusion of the article is basically “women are uniquely capable of interacting with (female) AI because they’ve BEEN the female AI”, with a call-to-action for women to basically… well. resume that role, except now using the AI as your girlbestfriend.