This is like talking about awareness and then driving away in a Tesla. The people who are feasting upon our institutions made AI. The same people we are protesting that infested this regime.
Treating criticism like an attack is the enemy of progress, and ironically more perfectionist than being able to acknowledge flaws in your messaging too.
If you know the post is AI and you don’t delete the post, that is tacit endorsement of using AI as a propaganda tool. You seem unbothered by that.
I do ignore the message if the medium is artificial. I won’t bother to read the image’s text or attempt to process the intent if I know the delivery is not genuine. I’m not going to waste my time or sully my brain by valuing and evaluating something posing as human expression.
You want me on your team? Don’t send a robo singing telegram as a recruiting tool. Convey your message like we’re humans instead of speaking through a fundamentally false impersonator. I don’t ask you to be a perfect human — I ask that you and your messages are genuine if you want me to listen. Trickery isn’t used to gain allies; it’s used to exploit the unwitting.
A message isn’t a genuine message, because the choice of instrument to prepare it is disliked.
Even if the text is the same, it’s the product of a “false impersonator” & “trickery”.
Here neither: merely pointing out your argument is invalid (which it is), is not an argument that your conclusion is false, which I simply didn’t bother to claim.
Would bothering to claim & argue it’s false (reusing your words) “waste my time” & “sully” my attention with an invalid argument?
Reusing your language even more
You know the comment is invalid and you don’t delete it, that is tacit endorsement of fallacies.
You seem unbothered by that.
I do ignore the message if it is irrational.
I won’t weigh your ideas further than necessary if I know the reasoning is poor.
I’m not going to waste my time or sully my brain by valuing and evaluating something posing as good reasoning that isn’t.
You want me on your team?
Don’t disrespect my attention with your poorly reasoned demands.
Convey your message like we understand logic instead of abusing our attention with a pretense of a well-thought argument.
I don’t ask you to be a perfect human — I ask that you and your messages respect logic if you want me to listen.
Flawed reasoning isn’t used to gain allies; it’s used to mislead & exploit the unwitting.
While I don’t completely agree with that argument, either (especially the first paragraph), insisting on reasoning/substance seems way more compelling than that original argument (rejecting a message over superficial considerations).
You absolutely can, but reasons that it’s right or logical are lacking or conflicted.
Rejecting a message is worthy of consideration over style is something an irrational person does.
It’s a classic fallacy.
Anything digital, electronic, or mechanical is artificial.
They want “genuine” human expression, and the printing press is impersonal, mass-produced schlock.
Gotta go full quill & parchment on this, hand delivered.
It’s distasteful, but a useful weapon. We need ways to create content that is good enough and really fast to make. A grassroots movement doesn’t have the funds to pay marketing teams to do our work for us.
AI is being used every social media site the world over to hamper discourse, embroil people, to enrage people…
I don’t know of another way to combat it except with more AI. Maybe at some point people will completely get off of the internet with the thought “There’s no real people on the internet any more”.
Or here’s a discussion on r*ddit about how Glaze is totally ineffective against poisoning image generation AIs. (Same principles apply to others like Nightshade)
Basically every poisoning technique is by its very nature too specific to be useful for poisoning all the types of AI out there, or is too invasive and ruins the content for humans too, or is not strong enough and it gets lost in the cacaphony of data anyway.
Really it’s a clever idea in principle but in practice AI poisoning isn’t really a mathematically viable way to combat AI.
You can’t avoid AI or things that use AI. We’ve been using these statistical models WELL before they became mainstream. And they mimic human authors well enough that it’s impossible in many cases.
Critique. This wouldnt have been hard to make in a presentable way without AI. I get it, I’m just saying now is the time to burn all bridges. Change is coming either way.
Wish we wouldnt use AI
yeah the identical styles get old real fast
Its also the weapon of the enemy.
“Hey look, it’s Steve! …oh wait.”
Perfection is the enemy of progress. Way to derail <3
This is like talking about awareness and then driving away in a Tesla. The people who are feasting upon our institutions made AI. The same people we are protesting that infested this regime.
It was a critique, not a tear down.
Yeah, this is silly. They literally just expressed that they wished AI wasn’t used.
And look how much it has derailed the conversation.
Treating criticism like an attack is the enemy of progress, and ironically more perfectionist than being able to acknowledge flaws in your messaging too.
There are always the snobs that prefer nobody else be doing shit either so they can feel even more superior.
Where’s AI? Is the whole image AI or just the art?
The whole image.
You’ve improved my AI detection skills, thanks.
But you seem to be ignoring the message.
Perfection is the enemy of progress. Organize, don’t just argue
and
Imperfect allies are not enemies.
I’m not. The message is good. But its spouted from atop the corrupted bloom of our stolen labor.
If you know the post is AI and you don’t delete the post, that is tacit endorsement of using AI as a propaganda tool. You seem unbothered by that.
I do ignore the message if the medium is artificial. I won’t bother to read the image’s text or attempt to process the intent if I know the delivery is not genuine. I’m not going to waste my time or sully my brain by valuing and evaluating something posing as human expression.
You want me on your team? Don’t send a robo singing telegram as a recruiting tool. Convey your message like we’re humans instead of speaking through a fundamentally false impersonator. I don’t ask you to be a perfect human — I ask that you and your messages are genuine if you want me to listen. Trickery isn’t used to gain allies; it’s used to exploit the unwitting.
That good ol’ purity spiral.
A message isn’t a genuine message, because the choice of instrument to prepare it is disliked. Even if the text is the same, it’s the product of a “false impersonator” & “trickery”.
Genetic fallacy & non sequitur.
Edit: specifically, style over substance.
deleted by creator
Definition doesn’t fit.
Here neither: merely pointing out your argument is invalid (which it is), is not an argument that your conclusion is false, which I simply didn’t bother to claim.
Would bothering to claim & argue it’s false (reusing your words) “waste my time” & “sully” my attention with an invalid argument? Reusing your language even more
While I don’t completely agree with that argument, either (especially the first paragraph), insisting on reasoning/substance seems way more compelling than that original argument (rejecting a message over superficial considerations). You absolutely can, but reasons that it’s right or logical are lacking or conflicted.
Rejecting a message is worthy of consideration over style is something an irrational person does. It’s a classic fallacy.
The fallacy fallacy is thinking that just naming fallacies discredits an argument. Literally what you just did in your post.
Noted
Alright now get back to the drawing board, and don’t come back until you have a meme you made in Krita
Nah, didn’t you read?
Some royal majesties
and will not have their attention sullied with
Anything digital, electronic, or mechanical is artificial. They want “genuine” human expression, and the printing press is impersonal, mass-produced schlock.
Gotta go full quill & parchment on this, hand delivered.
CUNEIFORM YOU PEASANT
It’s distasteful, but a useful weapon. We need ways to create content that is good enough and really fast to make. A grassroots movement doesn’t have the funds to pay marketing teams to do our work for us.
What did people do before AI? It wasn’t that long ago.
AI is being used every social media site the world over to hamper discourse, embroil people, to enrage people…
I don’t know of another way to combat it except with more AI. Maybe at some point people will completely get off of the internet with the thought “There’s no real people on the internet any more”.
You poison it and you dont use it. That’d how you fight AI. With tarpits and poison. They’re like Mentats.
That doesn’t work, based on the results we’ve seen so far. All attempts to poison AI have quickly been bypassed.
Is there any source to this claim?
Sure, a quick google search turned up this, published just four days ago:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10962550
Or here’s a discussion on r*ddit about how Glaze is totally ineffective against poisoning image generation AIs. (Same principles apply to others like Nightshade)
https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/12f9otc/so_the_whole_entire_glaze_ai_thing_does_it/
Basically every poisoning technique is by its very nature too specific to be useful for poisoning all the types of AI out there, or is too invasive and ruins the content for humans too, or is not strong enough and it gets lost in the cacaphony of data anyway.
Really it’s a clever idea in principle but in practice AI poisoning isn’t really a mathematically viable way to combat AI.
Ban AI where you can and talk about how bad it is when its relevant
They are never going to ban AI. It replaces too many workers. Hell, it’s smarter than half the people I know – even when it makes mistakes.
Who is “they”?
But i know AI wont be banned in most countries ever. The point is to try to make people avoid AI or avoid things that use AI
You can’t avoid AI or things that use AI. We’ve been using these statistical models WELL before they became mainstream. And they mimic human authors well enough that it’s impossible in many cases.
Its impossible in some cases, but possible in others
If people are openly using AI, others will be encouraged to do that to
Is this critiquing to build or tear down?
Critique. This wouldnt have been hard to make in a presentable way without AI. I get it, I’m just saying now is the time to burn all bridges. Change is coming either way.