AI-ters.
  • Sculptus Poe@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3342·
    19 hours ago

    What an insanely non-issue to clutch one’s pearls at… Between Luddites and Trumpites, this is the worst timeline…

    • Daggity@lemmy.zipEnglish
      382·
      18 hours ago

      Really appropriate example, actually.

      As the Industrial Revolution began, workers naturally worried about being displaced by increasingly efficient machines. But the Luddites themselves “were totally fine with machines,” says Kevin Binfield, editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites. They confined their attacks to manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labor practices. “They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.”

      • ILoveUnions@lemmy.worldEnglish
        81·
        17 hours ago

        Me and the boys being worried for our jobs as automation stretches onwards and just wanting some level of guarantee that good paying jobs will still be available 😭

      • MudMan@fedia.io
        515·
        15 hours ago

        For the record, the word as a general noun is widely recognized to mean what everybody thinks it means:

        Luddite noun Ludd·​ite ˈlə-ˌdīt : one of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving machinery as a protest broadly : one who is opposed to especially technological change

        One of the weirder annoyances of the AI moral panic is how often you see this spiral of pedantry about the historical luddites whenever someone brings up the word as a pejorative.

        I mean, fair rhetorical play, I suppose, in that it creates a very good incentive to not bring it up at all. If the goal was to avoid being called a luddite as an insult or as shorthand for dismissing AI criticism as outright technophobia I suppose that is mission accomplished, disingenuous as it is.

          • MudMan@fedia.io
            22·
            8 hours ago

            That is correct.

            It is also correct that someone disagreeing with me can be doing so because of a moral panic. Our agreement is entirely disconnected to whether there is a moral panic at play or not.

            For the record, I think “AI” is profoundly problematic in multiple ways.

            This is also unrelated to whether there is a moral panic about it. Which there absolutely is.

            • abbotsbury@lemmy.worldEnglish
              51·
              7 hours ago

              long winded way to say your objections are logical and sound while everyone else is just having a panic, you little moralizer you.

              • MudMan@fedia.io
                22·
                7 hours ago

                Well, no, it’s a concise way to say some objections are logical and sound and some are stemming from a moral panic.

                Whether I agree with the objections on each camp is, again, irrelevant.

                I disagree with some of the non-moral panic objections, too, and I’m happy to have that conversation.

                Four possible types of objections in this scenario, if you want to be “logical” about it:

                • Objections that aren’t moral panic that I agree with.
                • Objections that aren’t moral panic that I disagree with.
                • Objections that are moral panic that I disagree with.
                • Objections that are moral panic that I agree with.

                I think there aren’t any in that last group, but there are certainly at least some objections in all other three.

    • TingoTenga@lemmy.worldEnglish
      327·
      18 hours ago

      Ah, the always welcome “and so what?” comment, with a side of name calling for some extra spice.

    • criss_cross@lemmy.worldEnglish
      143·
      18 hours ago

      Like I’m not the biggest fan of gen ai but a generic computer screen feels like a good use case for filler text.

    • borth@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      102·
      18 hours ago

      Showing that even a small non-issue use of AI will be detected is a pretty strong incentive for other games to disclose that willingly. Otherwise, why would they admit to it if no one can tell? Morals??? 😂😂😂

      • Sculptus Poe@lemmy.worldEnglish
        923·
        18 hours ago

        Why should they “admit” to it when NeoLuddites with pitchforks and no ability to reason lurk around every corner?

        • abbotsbury@lemmy.worldEnglish
          82·
          13 hours ago

          A substantial part of the market not wanting AI in their products is actually a great reason for them to disclose when it is or isn’t used

    • XM34@feddit.orgEnglish
      413·
      14 hours ago

      Thank you. At least some people on this abomination of an antisocial media still seem to use their brain.

    • awesomesauce309@midwest.socialEnglish
      1024·
      18 hours ago

      Gamers who get mad having to wait for company logos to show while games boot: They have to disclose every piece of software they use to make every game! I want my games 100% hand crafted and bespoke. I want to sense the life people spent meticulously crafting mudsplat_texture_1 - mudsplat_texture_500. Also no crunch (and no bugs, obviously)

        • Sculptus Poe@lemmy.worldEnglish
          12·
          39 minutes ago

          It’s just reality. Selecting a bunch of textures nobody has seen before through AI but hand crafting the rest of the game would force them to wear the scarlet letters on their front, and open them up to brigading by the brainwashed NeoLuddite mob. That move by steam to appease the pitchfork masses is pretty heavy handed.