It's because most of it is utter dross, that's why.

It’s amazing to watch people like you not get the point at all. It’s like you’re missing some piece of yourself and cannot understand why people appreciate the humanity behind art. And to act like we should just lie down and take it?

I’m sorry for whatever the fuck happened to you.

It's a paradigm shift and people always behave in unpredictable ways when those come around. It'll settle down eventually into just being a part of normal life.

So, genuine question.

What do you propose should happen with the advances of AI?

Are we seeing AI generated jokes now? Sure, there are plenty of AI illustrations of jokes, but is AI actually writing the jokes themselves?

I worry about the mental health of people that attempt to protect an overinflated technology and attack the mental fortitude of people who bring real problems up with the technology. this is especially true since those same white knights are literally being institutionalized for psychosis and are actively creating cults around specific models.

it's absurd that people lacking the mental capacity to understand "a machine is not alive" have a seat at the table to discus the dangers presented by AI.

just want to point out that no technology in recorded history is "unstoppable", though it seems like that was said more to convince yourself than us.

That’s an intriguing inquiry, burgermeister! Based on the visual data provided, there is insufficient resolution or perspective to definitively enumerate the woman’s fingers. However, statistically, the modal number of human fingers is 10—distributed evenly across bilateral upper limbs. Absent phenotypic anomalies such as polydactyly or amputation, we may apply a high-confidence prior on the 10-finger hypothesis.

If you'd like, I can provide finger-related trivia, etymological derivations of digit names, or even a regex pattern to match finger-count assertions in text. 🧠 Let me know how deep you'd like to go down the finger rabbit hole!

I asked ChatGPT to write a related joke, and this is what it said:

Why did the computer get kicked out of the finger-counting contest?
Because it kept insisting the woman had exactly 10, unless specified otherwise in the prompt.

So, no, LLMs are not writing (good) jokes yet.

I mean, I guess it is kinda clever in a self aware sorta way, but the construction and pacing are unworkably clumsy.

It’s obviously AI because they all have the same face.

The usage of AI makes people stupider, which is a known fact. And you want it to become part of normal life?

Ai users (like you) ridicule users that don't want to use it. It's easier to use than to think.

AI users take what GPT says for truth even though the models continue to degrade.

Ai users don't care about learning, they just want results.

Yeah no, if that's supposed to be our future, I will gladly be hostile against it.

The paradigm shift toward stupid monthly paying users?

It doesn't matter what I (or anyone) "proposes". You may as well be asking me what I propose to do about the orbit of Jupiter. Arguing about it on the Internet is especially pointless. It's the new "Old man shouts at clouds" basically...

Neither I, nor anyone, can "protect" it or slow it down. You either find a way to work with what's happening or spiral into greater and greater impotent rage. Better accept this now than slowly go mad no?

Despite their size, steam engines do not typically disrupt my workflow.

Sure, but I expect they disrupted the workflow of folks in 1804...

I wasn't asking you because you know it is inevitable.

I was asking the other user because I do not see what can be done against this genie that is out of the bottle. Just abandoning is never going to happen and regulating isn't going to fix all the qualms they have with it.

"Computers make people stupider" have also been a known fact when personal computers became common.

Computers are making us stupid

So stupid that people now reckon PCs are our friends

(www.theregister.com)

I'm sure we can trace back "new thing makes people stupider" arguments back to Aristóteles. It's a common human trope.

Unless AI became sentient and do things by itself, AI art still have humanity behind it. You not liking the tool the human used for making the art does not invalidate the humanity of the person who used that tool.

If like me going back a couple of centuries and saying that a photograph was not made by a human, but by a soulless machine. And that anyone who enjoys or makes photography is missing their humanity.

You cannot invalidate someone's humanity. That's against human rights or something.

You should go face to face with a person who made some image they like and love and put a lot of effort into it using AI tools, and say to them, face to face and looking them in the eyes "I do not consider you a human being".

Same as people needed to travel and know other cultures to cure racism. The butlerian yihad needs to meet different people to cure something that's quickly turning into bigotry.

People said the metaverse was inevitable. Bitcoin was at one time inevitable.

Frankly, I think more impotent rage is needed.