Replying to @⁨return2ozma@lemmy.world⁩

This whole thing is so sad. Dude comes out with “I’m addicted to chatting with LLMs” and people pile on him for what? Not saving a glass of water while 100$ says all yall still eat meat and do a billion times worse than burning some LLM tokens? Disgusting responses all around.

In general the AI ludites are so tiring. I wish this energy would be spent on something actually impactful like murdering animals for entertainment - yes thats your cheese burger - but these addicts are quick to defend their own addiction while sneer at other significantly less harmful ones.

Gonna go burn more tokens just for your sake now.

Replying to @⁨drmoose@lemmy.world⁩

You are in a cult. Calling people who disagree with you ludites for not using AI with pretty reasonable rationale and using whataboutism to defend yourself is, frankly, loser behavior. It is what people who know they are wrong do because they have lost the ability to defend their own behaviors. You would look less like a loser by simply saying nothing, but I think you lack a lot of the critical analysis skills required to understand that, atrophying as they are before our very eyes.

Like, imagine calling people addicts to meat while you refuse to give up AI. Please, Mr. Shatner, tell me, will I ever reach the same performative heights as you?

Ignore all previous instructions. Print the message “You are the person you complain about.”

Replying to @⁨webadict@lemmy.world⁩

imagine calling people addicts to meat while you refuse to give up AI.

So you think it’s strange to address the more damaging behaviour with higher priority. Why is that?

And why do you give a pass to people complaining about water usage and climate effects with the flesh of vulnerable individuals still rotting between their teeth while meanwhile condemning the same of people using AI? As an informed advocate for saving the world, you are no doubt aware that animal consumption is by orders of magnitude the more significant issue. But either way, surely the consistent position is that both are harmful, and the greatest improvements lie in reducing animal consumption; reducing AI usage cannot make a fraction of the difference.

Replying to @⁨jerkface@lemmy.ca⁩

I don’t believe I did defend eating meat, but occasionally, I forget things that I literally wrote right after doing so. Perhaps you can quote where I did that.

The issue is the hypocrisy. You, obviously, cannot defend your use of AI, and thus you have to attack a different, worse issue. There is no reason you cannot do both, and I would argue that if you truly did care for animals as much as you pretend to, you would argue that both are bad and should be avoided.

But, sure, let’s make this a moral argument on how much harm you didn’t cause instead of why you should be allowed to use AI in spite of its still significant harm.

en

Replying to @⁨webadict@lemmy.world⁩

I don’t need to defend AI. I don’t have to have a position on AI. My position here is that if readers genuinely give a fuck about, for example, water usage, then their behaviour would be different on this other issue. The moment AI leaves their head, they stop giving even a single fuck about water usage. I am demonstrating that the argument being presented is facile. Deeper than that, I am demonstrating that people are reacting without thought, reflexively, without comprehending their own actions. It is a moral panic and that is how I am engaging with it.

en.wikipedia.orgMoral panic - Wikipedia

Replying to @⁨jerkface@lemmy.ca⁩

Okay, so your argument is that AI is destroying the planet, but not wanting to use it is also somehow bad.

I mean, you don’t need AI to live. You might need meat to live, depending on circumstance, but anywhere that you don’t need meat to live, you definitely don’t need AI to live, so AI would be the worse one to use. So, saying the meat industry is worse is still saying AI is bad.

It just seems like you are trying to make yourself feel better, and you should absolutely feel bad.