I want to avoid it but with google making sure that search results get worse and worse I’m in a bit of a pickle. Other search engines still feel lile they’re a bit behind though
I refuse to use it because it’s shit.
We are not the same.
Yup, these things are still garbage for >90% of all applications people are jamming them into. Breathed a sigh of relief when my company CEO said he doesn’t see us using AI for more than can center routing for at least the next several years.
I just don’t have a use for it. I already am generative AI.
Effectively I believe we are. During my MFA I realized we were simply copying as a form of craft. It’s all we do in arts. Any great work feels like just one continuous story retold again and again.
i wonder if they came up with such term to mock those who dont want to use ai and possibly actual vegans on the side.
They use to mock us with “Luddite” but the Technologists looked into that actual movement (rather than the caricature) and agreed, “yeah sure, like them”. That took the sting out of the pejorative, so they picked another mocked group to connect it with.
I am a AI Freedom Fighter.
I’m one too!
This is the dumbest shit I’ve ever read. Refusing to submit to corpo ratfuckery isn’t a lifestyle choice. It’s common sense.
Abstaining from a thing does not make one a vegan. That’s not how any of this works.
It’s like how they put the word gate after something to say that it is a scandal involving the former word.
Somesort of political scandal involving road maintenance? Oh yes well that’s roadgate then. Even though the Watergate scandal was in fact it scandal in the watergate hotel, rather than a scandal about water.
I’m sex vegan. Cry about it virgins
No animals harmed during sex…hmm
Disagreed. I am an animal.
I’m a sex vegetarian gotta be a bit open
I’m a sex pescatarian. I will not be answering questions.
Sex flexitarian is where it’s at
No mayo in the bedroom? Why even bother.
Vegan aioli just doesn’t cut it
“Vegan sex” is actually a different thing. It’s penetration but you stop before you cum.
If the human you’re fucking consented, then consuming their fluids is vegan. Hell if they consent, eating them would be vegan too.
Animals do not consent to having fluids extracted or their lives taken and flesh consumed. Animal agriculture keeps animals in filthy, torturous conditions too, which no animal would ever consent to either.
I had a fish that died by suicide. We didn’t eat it, but arguably
It was kept in captivity by you though, which is not it’s natural habitat so any choices it made were, arguably, under duress.
If you lived by a creek and regularly recognised a fish swimming by, and one day this fish killed itself in front of you- you still shouldn’t eat it as fish contain a lot of parasites and there’s very likely also something toxic in the water causing the fish to harm itself this way.
But yeah, sure, hypothetically: if for a year or so you knew a wild fish that lived in an unpolluted and ecologically healthy body of water, and one day this fish chose to kill itself in front of you. You could, if you really wanted to eat a suicidal fish, eat the fish and say it was vegan because the only harm that came to the fish was through the un-coerced choices of said suicidal fish.
Awe so the article author has a vendetta against vegans got it.
I mean, abstaining from animal products makes someone a vegan, right? If you abstain from AI products then it would follow that you’re an “AI vegan”.
Abstaining from animal products is just vegetarian. Veganism requires an extremely strict adherence to a very specific set of rules concerning animals.
Vegetarians can eat cheese, which is an animal product.
It follows, but it is also feels like click bait.
A definition of vegan is:
A vegetarian who eats plant products only, especially one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather.
There is an environmental parallel, and it made me read the article to see what they were on about – so I guess it worked.
To be clear, I am very pro environment (I live in it); I just feel like this is crossing the streams of related, but completely different movements, isn’t particularly helpful.
Yo
Reading this thread, I wonder if the term is intended to divide a largely environmentalist opposition.
Makes “nocoiner” seem tame by comparison.
There’s a huge push right now to salvage the AI hype bubble as people realize the tech can’t live up to the promises. They are also trying to prevent regulation.
This includes the pushes to humanize the tool, like saying it deserves rights or that there may be some kind of racism against the tool.
They’re trying to pretend it’s real AI rather than extremely complicated text prediction. Hell, the less knowledgeable among them might even believe it. LLMs are a sort of language pareidolia.
I don’t use A.I. because I’ve had nothing but negative interactions with A.I. Customer service bots that fail to give adequate responses, unhelpful and incorrect search result summaries, and, “art,” that looks like shit hasn’t made me want to sign up for ChatGPT or Gemini. For most people, this isn’t a moral stance, it’s just that the product isn’t worth paying for. Stop framing people that don’t use A.I. as luddites with an ax to grind just because tech bros spent billions on a product that isn’t good yet.
It’s fair to say that the environmental and ethical concerns are significant and I wouldn’t look down in anyone refusing to use AI for those reasons. I don’t look down on vegetarians or vegans either - I don’t have to agree with someone’s moral stance or choices to respect them.
But you’re right, LLMs are full of crap.
For most people, this isn’t a moral stance, it’s just that the product isn’t worth paying for.
Wait till you see the price of a burger in another five years.
You only notice AI-generated content when it’s bad/obvious, but you’d never notice the AI-generated content that’s so good it’s indistinguishable from something generated by a human.
I don’t know what percentage of the “good” content we see is AI-generated, but it’s probably more than 0 and will probably go up over time.
Shit take, the more AI-made media is online, the harder it is for AI developing companies to improve on previous models.
It won’t be indistinguishable from media made with human effort, unless you enjoy wasting your time on cheap uninteresting manmade slop then you won’t be fooled by cheap uninteresting and untrue AI-made slop.
deleted by creator
Calling them after a maligned (if harmless) group seems like a choice to paint refusing to use AI as being annoying, preachy and scorn-worthy.
They seem very determined to pressure people into using AI regardless of it’s practicality, environmental impact, or anything. Fuck this shit.
There’s been recent pushes in that regard, investment in AI shit has been enormous but the financial payoff for anyone besides hardware manufacturers remains nonexistent. So investors and corporations have recently redoubled their efforts into trying to get everyone to use it in the hopes that this somehow will make them profitable.
The irony of environmental activists using the word “veganism” while not being vegan 😒 (being vegan is one of the most significant reduction to greenhouse emissions that is within your personal choice)
Eh. Factory farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gases, particularly through methane released by large livestock herds.
But the industry is so saturated with subsidies and shielded from liabilities and exempted from taxes and so comically wasteful in its surplus production that there hasn’t been any material benefit to veganism as a social movement. You can take a moral position (and you should, eating meat is awful for a variety of reasons). But there’s no actual correlation between an increase in vegan eating habits and a decrease in agricultural emissions. All we ever get is more meat shipped abroad or thrown in the trash.
The real curb to agricultural production has been raw materials constraints - limits on arable land, potable water, and slaughterhouse workers - that have (directly or indirectly) emerged from a changed climate. Outside these limits, all we’ve really achieved is “Grapes of Wrath” style surplus destruction to keep retail prices up.
If a factory farm can produce another dead cow, it does, even if it can’t reliably bring the carcass to market. The profit margins are set so artificially high that they’d be fools not to do so. Only herd die-offs resulting from heat waves, water shortages, and a lack of below-market migrant labor seem to dissuade them from trying to expand.
20 years ago you could have said “Well, solar panels might be great for sustainability in theory, but the fossil fuel industry is so overwhelmingly powerful and solar panels so bad and expensive, it’s absolutely futile.”
Now, over 90% of added power plants are renewable, because there was at least some pressure to implement alternatives, and now they have matured enough to become economically viable on their own.
I think there are certain parallels to factory farming and plant-based alternatives + cultivated meat. We know that factory farming is very unsustainable, especially in terms of climate impact, resource use and zoonotic diseases (like bird flu and swine flu). These issues become ever more pressing as factory farming continues. We just won’t have a choice at some point but to switch to alternatives that are more sustainable, or everything goes to shit.
Creating demand for the alternatives funds their R&D and furthers their availability, which in turn leads to better products for lower prices, which makes further adoption much easier. Advancing the alternatives might have a much bigger impact than the mere reduction in meat consumption.
The more early adopters, the faster new technologies can advance. That’s true for every sustainable industry like solar energy, wind energy, battery storage, electric cars, and also meat alternatives.
So just the “Appeal to futility” logical fallacy? I’m convinced!
Every change starts somewhere. Yes, 0.001% of the population can be vegan and it most likely won’t save a single slaughterhouse animal. But 1%? That’s already significant enough to make at least some change, and 10%? That’s already setting market trends and modifying industries, 50%?
You get my point. You joining the current vegan population is significant! The vegan population is estimated to be 9% in india and mexico, 5% in Israel, 2% in the UK, 1.5% in the US, and estimated to be a total of 1%-3% of the global population. This is a movement that has probably saved more lives and more gas emissions than many others have.
So just the “Appeal to futility” logical fallacy?
At some point, you have to recognize factory farming as a public policy decision rather than a retail choice. And the response has to be organized and political, not individualistic and consumerist.
You joining the current vegan population is significant!
It’s significant for popular politics, sure. But a vegan community that satisfies itself with attaching blinders when they pass through the Bad Foods aisle at the grocery store is going to end up in the same place as the climate activist who only owns a bike.
The vegan population is estimated to be 9% in india and mexico, 5% in Israel, 2% in the UK, 1.5% in the US
The difference between the US and India is that if you go around trying to butcher cows in particularly devote areas of India, you’re subject to serious political reprisals. In the US, it’s practically a sacrament to eat burger.
At some point, you have to recognize factory farming as a public policy decision rather than a retail choice
It is both, and both affect each other. False dichotomy?
a vegan community that satisfies itself with attaching blinders when they pass through the Bad Foods aisle at the grocery store is going to end up in the same place as the climate activist who only owns a bike.
Strawmaning what being a vegan is. It is far from just turning a blind eye.
The difference between the US and India is that if you go around trying to butcher cows in particularly devote areas of India, you’re subject to serious political reprisals.
You know that they eat plenty of other animals right? If you go there, meat and animal products are a very big part of the local food.
I can’t take these arguments seriously.
It is both
It’s induced demand. Increased capacity invited consumption.
You know that they eat plenty of other animals right?
Per capita they’re heavily constrained. They have three times the population and one third the land area. They can’t slaughter animals to match US consumption patterns even if they try.
That’s incentivized a culture of veganism as normal and virtuous, as a consequence. And it has allowed the population to expand to 1.3B without experiencing rates of malnutrition common to more rural countries (Kenya, Argentina, and Haiti, for instance) where enormous stretches of land have been dedicated to feedstock.
Incorrect, get the guillotine
deleted by creator
No, I didn’t make it up. Although I rather wish I did, because it’s quite catchy, isn’t it?
No, it isn’t, it’s fucking stupid. The author was kind enough to link the source of that shitty idea, and the AI/vegan parallels are, per said article: ethical, environmental and wellness concerns.
Gee wiz, I sure never saw people with those 3 concerns in regards to anything other than veganism!!!
/s
propaganda like this is so fucking sad
colonizers don’t have anything to value in their culture and they don’t have a future so they want to rip on people who aren’t buying their garbage
The only AI I’d ever want is something like a VI from Mass Effect. Runs locally and harvests absolutely zero data.
I wouldn’t mind a Geth or two, for jolly cooperation
Also for destroying the occasional organics, as a little treat
