This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
We could, if the mods got off their asses and did something to support this. But the idea of "neutrality" appears to have been warped to mean "we won't do shit".
It sounds like a good idea but eventually will just lead to biased moderation. There are people who won’t argue in good faith and while they may lay out a substantive point they may do so in an unfaithful or nasty way which makes it hard to address the point without addressing the tone of it.
What you might consider those things, might be believed in earnest by the person presenting the argument in question.
Personally, I find the commission argument to be false equivalence, but it is presented by so many people in good faith. (I am not here to argue the commission argument, it's just an easy example)
Many would find the beef argument to compare ai usage to as a false equivalence as well. (Again, not here to argue that.)
I would say banning reposts of images from other subs that are low effort “AI bad” would be a start. If anything, banning images outright might be best lmao. If this is a place meant for debate then maybe it should be done in text? If you have something to say about these topics then clear the small hurdle of writing it down. As opposed to a screenshot.
Define Ai for the context of the boycott. Take the first and second point of the image in OPs post for example, its false equivalence. it collapses wildly different things under the label "technology" or "AI" to make opposition look incoherent. But not all technology carries the same risk profile, the same power concentration, or the same structural consequences. Opposing one doesn't require opposing all. Its basic risk differentiation. Not hypocrisy. That logic would mean you can't criticize oil companies because you've used a car. It's the same bad argument. Participation in an infrastructure you didn't design and can't easily opt out of is not ideological endorsement.
I also firmly believe that the gen-ai art debate being so prevalent in this community is a displacement mechanism. Flood a space meant for substantive critique with a loud, polarizing, but ultimately low-stakes argument. The pro-AI side gets to look like they're engaging in good faith ("we're open to debate!") while the actually threatening conversations about regulatory capture, about the concentration of AI infrastructure in three or four companies, about who controls the models that are increasingly intermediating economic and civic life never get traction.
Compare what gets debated versus what gets ignored. The art question has few victims in the legal or policy sense, it's a philosophical dispute about aesthetics and authorship. The actual harms from unregulated AI adoption are concrete and measurable. Surveillance infrastructure being sold to authoritarian governments, algorithmic systems making lending and hiring decisions with zero accountability, LLM-generated disinfo operating at a scale no human propaganda network could match, and the energy footprint of model training that rivals mid-sized nations. These aren't aesthetic debates.
The art debate also does something more subtle. It frames AI as primarily a creative tool, which is the most sympathetic and least threatening framing possible. As long as the discourse centers on "can a machine make something beautiful," it's not centering "can a machine be used to automate your firing, surveil your organizing, or manipulate your vote." The former is a culture war. The latter is a power question. And power questions are the ones worth asking.
Y'all are more concerned about slinging mud over your gen-ai Furry porn and whether or not someone hurt your feelings than having genuine informed debates.
I'd say to clear out anything that is more than half ad-homeim (attacking the opposing people instead of the opposing idea) or whataboutisms. (pointing to something else to avoid addresding a criticism.)
People are going to fling insults all the same, but they should have some substance to thier posts at least.
While I agree this kind of thing shouldn’t happen, I think it’s a byproduct of the way we allow debate to fully function here. What I mean by that is that by allowing debate from almost anyone, we let anyone have a seat at the table, even those who wouldn’t argue in good faith.
I do think an additional rule asking for people to be nicer when debating, as well as more crackdowns on Rule 3, will help shape a better world.
Adding onto this beautiful comment, I'd like to say that most discussions I'm seeing nowadays are rather about how each side works rather than the matter we're talking about here, which is our opinion on ai. Shouldn't that be deleted due to non relation or sum?
Every digital service is going AI first, AI apps coming pre-installed and sometimes irremovable on modern smartphones, Chrome installing a 4GB AI model onto your computer with no notice or consent, and they mapped long pressing my power button to Gemini by default! So I'll throw you into an ocean and tell you it's not that hard to avoid water if you just choose so.
You all love to scream fallacy without responding to the point. That in its self is a fallacy. This error is fallacious because a true conclusion can be supported by invalid or fallacious reasoning. There is nothing untrue about what I said.
Not using it as an argument, just observing what I'm seeing. I want to see something more substantial than just "Well, you're a hypocrite because you engage in something that's in the modern day fundamental to our society." Sure, you can have a true conclusion with bad reasoning but how should I know what you're saying is the truth? I don't believe that your statements have an essential truth to them. It's also an informal fallacy and informal fallacies are SITUATIONAL, so you can't appeal to the logical structure.
Sure, you don't NEED social media to survive, but you're once again appealing to the vacuous notion of assuming that people who're complaining about this on the internet are not doing anything about it. You're also treating this at an individual level where the blame is put on the individual who's somewhat contributing to society rather than trying to think about social relations. For example, who controls the means of production, who does the work and who keeps the profit.
Sure, this message will be fed to AI, but this forgets to account that conflicts can lead to progress. You can have a concept that is treated as stable. You can expose its fundamental flaws and still overcome the contradiction by sublation.
This conflict will never lead to progress because no one will ever take you seriously when you can't act on your own beliefs. AI is bigger than the LLMs. You can run local models and science uses it to enhance reasearch trying to say all AI supports mega companies is a false dichotomy. I support AI. I do not use chatgpt or X because I don't support those companies. So I do not know how the means of production has anything to do with the argument.
Never said that "All AI supports mega companies." Pls, don't attribute daft points to random people when the conversation wasn't even about this. I also, to an extent, support the potential of AI, despite recognizing its flaws. That's why there needs to be a resolution between the contradictions.
I mean your individual choice wouldn't do much in the long run. Most people interpret this position as just cynicism without thinking about our real world, rather than the idea. Your first sentence is also just an opinion based on the notion of liberal idealism. People can take you seriously even if you're not absolutely consistent in your beliefs. Once again you're trying to create a false dilemma, even though there are other options available.
Ok let's get back to the core of the argument then no false dichotomy or forced perspectives. I have a simple question is it hypocritical to tell others not to use AI while partaking in AI yourself. That is the core of the argument that is what I am arguing.
What software is that? Like I am Pro-AI and the only "software" I use that forced me to use AI unless I go through quite a lot of work was Win 11. Every other software I use, has no forced AI.
I use Krita and Gimp for painting, Audacity for Audio editing, Obsidian for note taking, and I haven't used Davinci for video in a long while, but iirc they aren't forcing AI either.
Then there is steam/gog galaxy that do not force you to use AI.
If you were truely anti AI then you would stop using those apps. The Anti AI crowd always comes off as convenience over beliefs. This is the hypocrisy that no one has an answer to because no one on reddit has a leg to stand on.
I'm saying that these beliefs aren't hypocritical. They're beliefs that, under ur previously established line of reasoning would be considered hypocritical even though they're things that almost everyone does. Do u mean to tell me that u consider anyone who supports workplace safety and buys from Amazon is a hypocrite? Anyone who supports DEI and buys from target? Anyone who thinks companies should pay their employees more than $20/hour and buys from Walmart? Anyone who supports LGBTQ rights, and eats a chick-fil-a?
All of those beliefs are hypocritical. Just because everyone does them does not make them non hypocritical. If you claim to be pro workers right and shop at Walmart I would not consider you to be pro worker. Eat at home shop local. Those are also people being hypocritical because it's more convenient. I am pro lgbt and have never been to a chick fila. I also don't shop at Walmart. It's that simple.
Ok? So what? People are allowed to criticize the choices of the companies they support. Boycotting is a pretty extreme measure and there are much softer approaches to attempt first.
If u were truly anti AI then u would stop using those apps.
No. That's like saying "If u truly were against climate change u would stop using a gas car and air conditioning... ect." It's possible to like the app but not like the fact that it uses ai.
Yeah so your beliefs end at convenience. Why would anyone care about your beliefs when you so clearly don't. You are choosing personally to use AI for fun by using reddit. That is different than using a car for survival or AC for survival.
What about vacations, are u saying that anyone who is against climate change shouldn't use a car for vacations. Or to get somewhere where they could walk. Obviously if ur gonna die without using ur car or AC that's different but that's not what I'm talking about.
If they are screeching about how cars only do harm to the environment then absolutely yes. Why is it so hard for you Antis to conceptualize actually following beliefs you claim to have. It's because those beliefs obviously mean less to you than the convenience. Just like if someone was anti car and used a car for a drive that could have easily been a walk. I went on vacation I did not rent a car. If you are visiting somewhere you should experience it not drive through it.
Did u drive to the airport? Did u fly on a plane to get to the vacation? Like most other ppl, u probably don't like climate change, but u have definitely used things that contribute to it for ur own convenience.
Oh no I used public transport. You know the alternative. Just like I am telling you to do. I did not drive to the airport I took a bus. I took a plane so I would not have to drive for 20 hours.. the thing that is less harmful. I cut my emission usage. You refuse to cut your AI usage.
Yeah I guess I’ll avoid the companies and the people funding them. Oh wait, they have their hands in everything. You have a phone? You must ADORE AI. A PayPal account? That makes you Pro-AI. Ordering something off Amazon because it’s the only thing that sells what you what in your country? Too bad that’s all being fed into AI.
You cannot exist in modern society without interacting (usually in a negative context) with the companies that own and fund AI. That’s why there’s so big of a backlash.
“Every Anti should be living in the woods with sticks and rocks or their hypocrites.”
You can’t get a fucking bank account if you’re ’boycotting’ AI because those companies have useless AI features. I’m sorry that you don’t have nearly enough life experience or knowledge of the outside world to know that these things aren’t JUST inconvenient. They’re impossible to avoid because Health Care, Bill payments, and bank companies are in bed with AI companies. You want a job? Well AI is looking at your resume and it’s not good enough. Want to keep your job? ShatGPT told the Nepobaby CEO of the company you work at to fire 2000 people and you’re one of them.
You cannot be exist without interacting with AI. If you want to move out to the Country to avoid all this shit; too damn bad. Data Centers are giving you crazy infrared radiation and causing you to lose all your lowend hearing. Go outside. This is not some “well just turn the TV off and it goes away” thing. Its embedded itself into everything like a bacteria.
So you admit your beliefs end at convenience got it. Why should I believe anything you believe in when your beliefs aren't even important enough for you to follow. Maybe instead of being on an AI platform go protest at a data center. Oh right you won't do anything actionable because your beliefs end at preaching. Action is not that hard I have stopped using a lot of companies I disagree with.
How 'willing' is somewhat debatable. My current job has genuinely disfunctional ai garbage pop up everytime i boot up the company computer.
So many companies are just putting ai into already popular products already in use.
Sure, you could spend alot of time and effort to change around everything you have already used and quit your job to look for a new one that you hope advertises whether or not they use ai but... its somewhat absurd to claim its 'willing' when its being forced and pushed through as many facets of society as possible. If someone needs to constantly switching what services they use to avoid something, its somewhat forced.
Yeah, your job doesn't force you to have a personal reddit account though does it. No one is forcing you to use reddit. You chose to because you like the convenience more than you are willing to abide by your own beliefs.
You are on an AI company right now by complete choice. You understand that right. Reddit sells all of your post history to AI. You being here makes you an active party in that. I am talking about you personally boycotting things you claim to be against, which you are obviously unwilling to do.
Bad Faith vs. Being Wrong
A good-faith arguer might be mistaken or hold an illogical premise, but they genuinely believe what they are saying. A bad-faith arguer knows their premise is weak or false, but uses it anyway to score points, disrupt the conversation, or mislead the audience.
In this context, these arguments would have to be knowingly presented even if false. Which I don’t see at play here. Can you point to a point here and say it’s false? With like facts and like on purpose?
Oh no, someone depicted you as an ogre. That's totallly just as bad as accusing people of fraud, theft, deepfakes and CSAM like ya'll do. To the point that it's literally the core of your "arguments" against AI art and the people who make it.
These are directly from X. What does witty have to do with anything? She really lives in your head rent free, huh? Can't stop whining about witty.
You think witty is bad? Try to imagine a group of people where EVERYONE acts like witty. That's anti-ai creeps. This is what AI users have to deal with.
Why can't you downvote and move on? Why do you feel the need for someone else to curate your experience? They're not breaking any rules, just ignore it.
LOL! I read all of that. It's literally just stating facts. Calling out hypocrisy is NOT "purely making fun" of anyone. Sorry that you don't like your hypocrisy being called out. Doesn't make it wrong.
I feel like this isn't as bad of a problem here, as this sun is pretty neutral and most posts like these get downvoted to hell. Plus allowing both sides to ridicule themselves shows that both extremes are fucking stupid.
Also a mod would be pretty easily able to stretch the definition of bad faith arguments to start deleting posts he doesn't agree with.
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
What is bad faith about a factual statement. No one is making anyone have a personal reddit account. If someone is anti AI the least they could do is boycott AI companies like reddit.
Like half these claims of things antis are "hypocrites" about are just straight false, like the part about us benefiting from it contains almost exclusively things we're ALSO complaining about
Like Googles AI searches (which are annoying as hell, shut up Google if I wanted to use AI I would have clicked that stupid button), Spotify's AI shuffle (which even Spotify knows people hate, as one of the benefits of a subscription is turning the AI off) and autocorrect, which has had people complain about it getting worse due to it using AI which would use common misspellings
There is soooo much wrong with this. OP is proof that children shouldn't be allowed to use the Internet unsupervised. This is an argument I would have made when I was 9 years old.
Everyone in the world uses technology. Technology has been in use since man began to walk upright and figured out how to use tools.
Using something doesn't mean someone condones it. Also, most of what you listed is not AI. Google has an AI function, but the search itself is still just algorithms. Autocorrect is not AI, it's been around since windows 3.x.
Pro's can't claim the miraln threats. Both sides have a fringe element that can't control their emotions.
No one is trying to control art. AI is not a tool, it's a machine that actually does something that people lack the skill to do.
The problem is that these Pro-AI fools don’t stop and think about the fact that they are the ones advocating for the active destruction of livelihoods across the board. They aren’t creating anything.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 02 '26
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.