pull down to refresh

125 sats \ 6 replies \ @unboiled 2 Sep \ parent \ on: Does finding out something was made by AI make you like it less? AskSN

That is a nice cherry-picked collection of cases where concerns turned out to be considered unfounded eventually.
How about the cases that weren't unfounded? Will we give those examples a name other than "techno-anxiety"?

Your choice of that term alone makes me believe your position is to dismiss concerns with a lazy wave of the hand as unfounded when it comes to something you consider the natural path of progress.

To be clear, I don't have issues or major concerns with the use of AI. But I do have issues with low effort assertions that opposing something is simply a case of techno-anxiety.

write
compose
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullcount 2 Sep
That is a nice cherry-picked collection of cases where concerns turned out to be considered unfounded eventually.

Its actually not a collection of cases. It's a collection of categories of technology.

Technology is neutral. Only applications of the tech can have positive/negative outcomes.

Plastic bags, leaded gasoline, lead based paint, DDT, CFC, asbestos.

The "technology" behind lead-containitng products is "mixing"

Mixing, as a technology, is neutral. You can make good mixtures and bad ones. Those specific mixtures of lead and paint or lead and gasoline are examples of a bad mix.

Plastic bags are a bad (arguable) application of plastics technology (neutral).

DDT, CFC, asbestos are products of chemical process (neutral technologies).

I can also imagine an evil/bad AI or photograph, or novel, or book, or written text. But it does not make the underlying tech bad.

reply
15 sats \ 4 replies \ @wackster OP 2 Sep

can you name any of the cases where concerns about technology were valid?

nuclear bombs seems like an easy one, and yet mostly people don't think about it anymore.

reply
15 sats \ 3 replies \ @unboiled 2 Sep

From a simple search: Plastic bags, leaded gasoline, lead based paint, DDT, CFC, asbestos.

reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @wackster OP 2 Sep

i'd say that all of those are fully embraced, people just changed some of the ingredients.

the analogy here would be that we embrace AI slop, just with different weights.

reply
15 sats \ 1 reply \ @unboiled 2 Sep

You and I seem to have very different definitions of "fully embraced."

Besides, that was not your question. You asked to name some where concerns were valid.

reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @wackster OP 2 Sep

what i meant was that the world largely uses gasoline even though it stopped putting lead in it.

my question has to do with humans deciding to give up on a technology, not necessarily finding ways to still use it just without so many bad side effects.

if humans figure out a way to produce ai slop without it being quite so noxious (the equivalent of not putting lead in paint), it is still ai slop.

my intent is not to dismiss the changes that are occurring all around us, but I do want to figure out why I have this curious experience of discovering i dislike something that I didn't necessarily dislike before I knew it was AI generated.

Here's another example, if watch a movie and enjoy it but then later discover something vile about the director (maybe he hates bitcoin or thinks Craig Wright is Satoshi or something) it changes how I feel about the movie I previously liked. I almost can't help it. That may just be human nature or may just be my own flawed character -- is what is happening to me with my feelings about AI generated art the same? or is there really something less good about an AI generated picture even if I like it?

reply