But not by the white people.

There’s a difference between seeing and perceiving. If you see AI slop and don’t see how it is different than something crafted by a human expert, that is a problem of one’s perception.

1. How Generative AI is framed by the industry is an affront to humanistic values.

https://www.pcgamer.com/software/ai/tech-ceos-dont-seem-to-realise-just-how-anti-human-their-ai-fanaticism-is-and-i-think-its-all-because-of-the-enlightenment/

2. It’s not even close to consciousness. For those of us who understand how these things work it’s almost an insult to make the comparison.

https://addxorrol.blogspot.com/2025/07/a-non-anthropomorphized-view-of-llms.html

3. All the other unethical considerations mentioned elsewhere by others (stealing art, water usage, politics).

Does Japan / type-A not have grounded circuits?

If you think critics of wokeness are wrong, then show why. Don’t just insult them and pretend that counts as insight.

Why would someone take the time to explain something to someone arguing in bad faith? Sounds like a foolish endeavor.

I’ll leave you with the words from OP elsewhere in this thread because it equally applies to you:

Thanks, but I didn’t ask that and your assertion is based on your own bias/opinion

Yes I had an inflammatory response. I honestly don’t perceive OP as making a good faith argument when they say “negative effects of wokeness”. It’s a thought terminating cliche.

Okay then, swap out AI with wokeness, it still doesn’t come to the level of a “worldview”. It is still an observation.

everyone who disagrees with my worldview is a bot

I hardly consider my opinion on AI a “worldview”. It is an observation that generative AI use in decision making and creativity reduces cognitive activity. Yes I asked OP to disprove me in an “ad-hominem” manner though. I guess we violently agree on that?

Not really… AI bots are bad at providing value because they have no values and don’t understand context. You can deliver a scathing reproach that has value as long as it fits the context and reflects your values. But do you consider your response an ad-hominem?

You are right in that I never answered the question asked. However, I would not say the conversation is a nonstarter, I asked you a question and you answered it well. That sounds like a discussion to me…

You never replied to the question in the post.

I think you might be hallucinating.

Seriously. Men are perceived as dangerous by default and that influences how we think about solving problems.

What is your intention with this response? Do you expect me to suddenly give you something you value as a response? That would be silly based on the conversation this far.

How is your response any different than what you are complaining about?

Edit: this is rhetorical, I am actually not interested in a response. Oh the irony.

I’m not even from the Lemmy world instance. I’m from the instance that specifically rails against AI slop. Thank you for being silly.

I’m convinced people railing against wokeness are just AI bots at this point. OP, can you prove you are not a stochastic parrot without saying something silly?

There are about ~3000 billionaires. Or a billionaire every minute.

I mean churches should be anticapitalist and before the turn of the last century they often were. But then property got expensive and churches would need loans… Now we have prosperity gospel and mega churches. The internet ran the same course but in just a couple decades.

Aside from the systemic reasons why the internet leans heavily right: when you deport people’s neighbors then politics is no longer a sports game and even the nonvoters understand this.

Communists are just as selfish as anyone else. Their point is that if we want a better life we need to move beyond capitalism, communism is an appeal to our selfish nature as much as it is a call for cooperation.