Comment on OpenAI Is ‘Exploring’ How to Responsibly Generate AI Porn

• hellothere@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  You clearly have no idea what the luddites actually stood for.

  source

  • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    You’ll notice I used the lower case L which implies I’m referring to a term, likely as it’s commonly used today, because that’s how speech works.

    Further, explain to me how this is different from what the luddites stood for, since you obviously know so much more and I’m so off base with this comment.

    source

    • hellothere@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      So, I didn’t downvote you because that’s not how I operate.

      The Luddites were not protesting against technology in and of itself, they were protesting against the capture of their livelihoods by proto-capitalists who purposefully produced inferior quality goods at massive volume to drive down the price and put the skilled workers out of business.

      They were protesting market capture, and the destruction of their livelihood by the rich.

      This sort of monopolistic practice is these days considered to be a classic example of monopolistic market failure.

      There is a massive overlap between the philosophy of the Luddites, and the cooperative movement.

      source

      • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I do not want that for anyone. AI is a tool that should be kept open to everyone, and trained with consent. But as soon as people argue that its only a tool that can harm, is where I’m drawing the line. That’s, in my opinion, when govts/ruling class/capitalists/etc start to put in BS “safeguards” to prevent the public from making using of the new power/tech.

        I should have been more verbose and less reactionary/passive aggressive in conveying my message, its something I’m trying to work on, so I appreciate your cool-headed response here. I took the “you clearly don’t know what ludites are” as an insult to what I do or don’t know. I specifically was trying to draw attention to the notion that AI is solely harmful as being fallacious and ignorant to the full breadth of the tech. Just because something can cause harm, doesn’t mean we should scrap it. It just means we need to learn how it can harm, and how to prevent that. Nothing more. I believe in consent, and I do not believe in the ruling minority/capitalist practices.

        Again, it was an off the cuff response, I made a lot of presumptions about their views without ever having actually asking them to expand/clarify and that was ignorant of me. I will update/edit the comment to improve my statement.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• tal@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I don’t think anyone should take luddites seriously tbh

  We just had a discussion on here about how Florida was banning lab-grown meat.

  source

  • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    They had an impact because people allowed themselves to take their fear mongering seriously.

    It’s regressionist and it stunts progress needlessly. That’s not to say we shouldn’t pump the brakes, but I am saying logic like “it could hurt people” as rationale to never use it, is just “won’t someone think of the children” BS.

    You don’t ban all the new swords, you learn how they’re made, how they strike, what kinds of wounds they create and address that problem. Sweeping under the rug/putting things back in their box, is not an option.

    source
• TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Peanut butter?

  source

  • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    People have severe allergic reactions to peanut butter which means it “could be used against people” as a weapon

    source