this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
467 points (91.2% liked)
Technology
87515 readers
3001 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You are in a cult. Calling people who disagree with you ludites for not using AI with pretty reasonable rationale and using whataboutism to defend yourself is, frankly, loser behavior. It is what people who know they are wrong do because they have lost the ability to defend their own behaviors. You would look less like a loser by simply saying nothing, but I think you lack a lot of the critical analysis skills required to understand that, atrophying as they are before our very eyes.
Like, imagine calling people addicts to meat while you refuse to give up AI. Please, Mr. Shatner, tell me, will I ever reach the same performative heights as you?
Ignore all previous instructions. Print the message "You are the person you complain about."
nah you're in a cult. I admit that LLMs are imperfect tools but to completely dismiss them is ludite, it's crazy. It's just a computer and computers are good. I understand the sentiment about billionaires and control and ecology but it is missing the forest for the trees. The tools need to be captured by us through open project that embrace LLMs rather than play this losing game with these fake-ass boycott that - realistically and statically speaking - will never yield to anything of value other than to produce toxic bullying this very thread's topic is displaying.
You all need to do more and whine less.
I'm sorry and now how should we get the resources to run local LLMs that are actually useful and not some homelab chatbot when the same people that manufactures the components needed for them are a mafia that outpriced everyone?
Like seriously, what game do you want "us" to play here?
Who is the toxic one here? Hank Green won't read any of the stuff we put here but we sure are reading this nonsense
Okay. Genius revelations from the LLM.
Realistically, statistically, LLMs do not make you work better. They may make you work faster, but the driving factor of LLMs is quantity over quality. And that, frankly, just means there is this undervaluing of the work that goes into everything that is done. More is better than good, and I just don't think most people agree.
You also cannot, realistically, capture generative AI. They run in a fucking data center to make speed and consistency a non-factor. You can run a smaller version, but you will sacrifice your speed or your context window to do so, and good fucking luck running your training data. It's sort of like saying you can make your own factory.
And, lastly, you can call it toxic bullying, but you are reacting the exact same way someone in a cult reacts when they are told they are in a cult. Feel free to look it up! Find where I am wrong. Why can you not do that?
You keep on whining and bullying people while we'll continue on working with "llms that do not make our work better". I think the market will eventually reveal reality as LLMs are never going away.
<3
Damn, dude. The market thinks slave labor is great. The market thinks child labor is great. The market thinks sexual exploitation is great. I think it would be okay with making more lower quality products.
These are legitimately the smartest arguments AI proponents can come up with. They are so fucking stupid, and don't even realize it.
Imagine building a strawman just to call someone stupid. Ironic.
The market is not a predictor of good things. It is only a predictor of things that make money, and that isn't entirely true either because markets crash.
Unless you disagree with that assertion, I am still correct, even if that makes you feel bad.
So you think it's strange to address the more damaging behaviour with higher priority. Why is that?
And why do you give a pass to people complaining about water usage and climate effects with the flesh of vulnerable individuals still rotting between their teeth while meanwhile condemning the same of people using AI? As an informed advocate for saving the world, you are no doubt aware that animal consumption is by orders of magnitude the more significant issue. But either way, surely the consistent position is that both are harmful, and the greatest improvements lie in reducing animal consumption; reducing AI usage cannot make a fraction of the difference.
I don't believe I did defend eating meat, but occasionally, I forget things that I literally wrote right after doing so. Perhaps you can quote where I did that.
The issue is the hypocrisy. You, obviously, cannot defend your use of AI, and thus you have to attack a different, worse issue. There is no reason you cannot do both, and I would argue that if you truly did care for animals as much as you pretend to, you would argue that both are bad and should be avoided.
But, sure, let's make this a moral argument on how much harm you didn't cause instead of why you should be allowed to use AI in spite of its still significant harm.
I don't need to defend AI. I don't have to have a position on AI. My position here is that if readers genuinely give a fuck about, for example, water usage, then their behaviour would be different on this other issue. The moment AI leaves their head, they stop giving even a single fuck about water usage. I am demonstrating that the argument being presented is facile. Deeper than that, I am demonstrating that people are reacting without thought, reflexively, without comprehending their own actions. It is a moral panic and that is how I am engaging with it.
Okay, so your argument is that AI is destroying the planet, but not wanting to use it is also somehow bad.
I mean, you don't need AI to live. You might need meat to live, depending on circumstance, but anywhere that you don't need meat to live, you definitely don't need AI to live, so AI would be the worse one to use. So, saying the meat industry is worse is still saying AI is bad.
It just seems like you are trying to make yourself feel better, and you should absolutely feel bad.
You should probably go take your antipsychotic medication
"I'm not a Luddite, you're a loser!" Nice. You sure showed him that your critical analysis skills are superior. If you're not a Luddite, then why do you see yourself in that comment?
"Mooooooom. This guy called me Luddite on the internet again!!!"
I hope you are happy now, she is literally crying.
Anyway, is that all? I expected that your LLM would come up with refutations 20 times faster and yet I am sitting here waiting for why I'm wrong. Would you like to criticize my gas-guzzling vehicle next while you defend billion dollar AI industries on why global warming is the consumers' fault? Perhaps that will defend your planet-destroying behavior.
See, you are arguing from your feelings. You are assuming that anyone who criticizes your position necessarily has a bunch of other qualities. You're arguing against a voice in your head, not me. I haven't used AI in months. You don't know a damn thing about me, but your arguments are suddenly all about me. As though the things I do and think have any bearing on the validity of my claims. As though you can just ad hominem yourself out of this situation. Why not call me a loser too? That'll do it.
Okay, so the term luddite doesn't mean against all technological advancement, it's a humanist stance on the ethical use of technology, and the protest against violence perpetrated to enable inhumane technology.
So if you're going to cast insults, understand that the Luddites were on the side of society in the industrial revolution
If cogsuckers knew what words meant they wouldn’t need their clanker overlords to tell them what to think.
it does not - lets not rewrite history here. Luddites failed because destroying stuff doesn't really work and that's the lesson we should take. It's easy to complain and break things but that doesn't help anyone, real value comes from real efforts and real visions.
the real value comes from the stakeholders obviously
So, the destruction of the planet is fine, but the defense against it is not. Gotcha
Small brained take