The mindset that treats AI like the bubonic plague. It’s not something that should be avoided. If used properly, it can be a great asset for people.
AI is just a tool, and you shouldn’t blame it for humans’ misuse of it. Instead, we should treat it like other tools: as something to use for appropriate situations/tasks.
The “if used properly” is the hard part: AI is good for simple tasks, like organizing and labeling things. However, as of 2026, AI is not sufficient for tasks involving creativity like art and music. It doesn’t capture that human aspect yet (It could in the future).
TL:DR: My point is that AI isn’t inherently bad, like many people make it out to be. Instead, it’s how humans use it that can make it bad.
AI is not sufficient for tasks involving creativity like art and music. It doesn’t capture that human aspect yet (It could in the future).
There’s a dismissive take on AI creating art that “AI can never create a truly great work of art or tell a truly compelling story.” I worry less about that, since those are really subjective stances to take on a given work; one person’s La Dolce Vita is another’s Dude, Where’s My Car? and vice versa.
What I want us to worry about is: What are we going to do to protect human dignity, even if there’s no profit motive in it? Sure, maybe an AI screenwriter could someday write a movie that people would want to see, but why should that mean that human screenwriters should have to starve even more than they currently do? If we can automate a large percentage of all human labor, does that mean that we’re just going to render most humans unemployable and not change anything else, because that’s what the invisible hand demands? Or are we going to have a serious conversation about how human dignity has value, in and of itself, and totally separate from our ability to increase GDP?
It’s interesting to see the collision of academic mindsets with the proliferation of AI. I largely agree with you: if something uses public data it should be offered as a public good.
It makes sense to me why it happened, though. Growing up, I always had the expectation that the stuff I put on the Internet would be there forever and basically used in ways that I wouldn’t expect. I didn’t feel the need to tell people what they could and could not learn from my posts and whatever tiny amount of learning I impart on a person feels perfectly analogous to whatever tiny amount of weight updates I’ll provide to a model.
Academia felt very similar to me. We put out papers because we found the subjects interesting. We didn’t make money from them (public funding) and people would build things on what we learned. It felt like a good model. Everyone shares the knowledge.
My biggest beef with AI isn’t that they trained on the Internet, it’s that they trained on the Internet and kept the result for themselves.
I think people blame AI for incompetent management, which is like blaming a saw for bad carpentry. AI doesn’t force employees to use it whether it’s appropriate or not - managers do that. AI isn’t building massive datacenters regardless of impact - executives are doing that.
I use AI at work, it has significantly improved my productivity, it does the shit mundane stuff (like transferring information into new corporate templates) leaving me to concentrate on the actual job I need to do.
The mindset that treats AI like the bubonic plague. It’s not something that should be avoided. If used properly, it can be a great asset for people.
AI is just a tool, and you shouldn’t blame it for humans’ misuse of it. Instead, we should treat it like other tools: as something to use for appropriate situations/tasks.
The “if used properly” is the hard part: AI is good for simple tasks, like organizing and labeling things. However, as of 2026, AI is not sufficient for tasks involving creativity like art and music. It doesn’t capture that human aspect yet (It could in the future).
TL:DR: My point is that AI isn’t inherently bad, like many people make it out to be. Instead, it’s how humans use it that can make it bad.
There’s a dismissive take on AI creating art that “AI can never create a truly great work of art or tell a truly compelling story.” I worry less about that, since those are really subjective stances to take on a given work; one person’s La Dolce Vita is another’s Dude, Where’s My Car? and vice versa.
What I want us to worry about is: What are we going to do to protect human dignity, even if there’s no profit motive in it? Sure, maybe an AI screenwriter could someday write a movie that people would want to see, but why should that mean that human screenwriters should have to starve even more than they currently do? If we can automate a large percentage of all human labor, does that mean that we’re just going to render most humans unemployable and not change anything else, because that’s what the invisible hand demands? Or are we going to have a serious conversation about how human dignity has value, in and of itself, and totally separate from our ability to increase GDP?
Sure… but I’d like for them to make some sort of amends for stealing all the content on the internet to make it?
And I’d like content made by AI to have that declared so consumers can support human artists and avoid grifters.
It’s interesting to see the collision of academic mindsets with the proliferation of AI. I largely agree with you: if something uses public data it should be offered as a public good.
It makes sense to me why it happened, though. Growing up, I always had the expectation that the stuff I put on the Internet would be there forever and basically used in ways that I wouldn’t expect. I didn’t feel the need to tell people what they could and could not learn from my posts and whatever tiny amount of learning I impart on a person feels perfectly analogous to whatever tiny amount of weight updates I’ll provide to a model.
Academia felt very similar to me. We put out papers because we found the subjects interesting. We didn’t make money from them (public funding) and people would build things on what we learned. It felt like a good model. Everyone shares the knowledge.
My biggest beef with AI isn’t that they trained on the Internet, it’s that they trained on the Internet and kept the result for themselves.
I fully agree with you.
I stated something similar a week ago or so and had one dude going nuts. I mean nuts;
No idea who the guy was, skimmed the comments and immediately blocked him. I thank Lemmy every day for having a infinite blocklist possibility.
I think people blame AI for incompetent management, which is like blaming a saw for bad carpentry. AI doesn’t force employees to use it whether it’s appropriate or not - managers do that. AI isn’t building massive datacenters regardless of impact - executives are doing that.
I agree with this.
I use AI at work, it has significantly improved my productivity, it does the shit mundane stuff (like transferring information into new corporate templates) leaving me to concentrate on the actual job I need to do.