I want to let people know why I’m strictly against using AI in everything I do without sounding like an ‘AI vegan’, especially in front of those who are genuinely ready to listen and follow the same.
Any sources I try to find to cite regarding my viewpoint are either mild enough to be considered AI generated themselves or filled with extremist views of the author. I want to explain the situation in an objective manner that is simple to understand and also alarming enough for them to take action.
Except the first phrase and last paragraph, it was AI. Honestly, it feels like OP is taunting us with such a vague question. We don’t even know why they dislike AI.
I’m not an AI lover. It has its place and it’s a genuine step forward. Less than what most proponents think it’s worth, more than what detractors do.
I only use it myself for documentation on the framework I program in, and it’s reasonably good for that, letting me extract more info quicker than reading through it. Otherwise haven’t used it much.
“Good catch! I did make that up. I haven’t been able to parse your framework documentation yet”
My question was genuine. I haven’t been an avid user of generative AI when it was first released and decided against using it at all lately. I tried to use it in niche projects and was completely unreliable. Its tone of speech is bland and the way it acts as a friend feels disturbing to me. Plus the environmental destruction it is causing on such a large scale is honestly depressing to me.
All that being said, it is not easy for me to communicate these points clearly to someone the way I have experienced it. It’s like the case for informing people about privacy; casual users aren’t inherently aware of the consequences of using this tool and consider it a godsend. It will be difficult for them to convince that the tool they cherish to use so much is not that great after all, thus I am asking here what the beat approach should be.
Isn’t that exactly the answer you are looking for?
The “environmental destruction” angle is likely to cause trouble because it’s objectively debatable, and often presented in overblown or deceptive ways.