🎵She’s got that long-ass snoot. Boots with the fur🎵
Challenge Defeatism. Resist Doomerism
🎵She’s got that long-ass snoot. Boots with the fur🎵
Sure, but that’s not my decision to make. The ask was for other communities that are not politics focused. If people want to gather in one of those over another, that’s their choice not mine. I just listed some I’m aware of, that’s all.
Some of these communities are more active than others, so if you do find them interesting/valuable please post.
The argument being made is: "AI is currently slop but there is a reasonable expectation that it will be pushed until it is indistinguishable from human work, and therefore devaluing of human work.
Again, if the work is ‘indistinguishable’ then I don’t see how AI art ‘devalues’ human work any more than the work done by another human. This just sounds like old fashioned competition, which has existed as long as art itself has.
I don’t like AI because it’s just another way that “corporate gonna corporate” and it never ends up working out for the mere mortals’ benefit
Corporations abusing technology to the disbenefit of people is nothing new, unfortunately, and isn’t unique to AI (see Email, computers, clocking in machines, monitoring software etc). That speaks to a need for better corporate oversight and better worker rights.
misinformation is already so prevalent and it’s going to continue to get worse (we have seen this already–trump abuses it continually).
This is a good point, but again AI is hardly the first time technology has been used to spread lies and misinformation. This highlights a fundamental problem with our media and a need to teach better critical thinking in schools etc.
They’re all valid concerns but in my opinion they suggest AI is being used as an enabler, and not that the problems in question are the sole product of it. Sadly if we stopped using anything and everything that was misused for nefarious means we’d go back to the stone age.
AI is generally bad because it tends to steal content from human creators…
Again, this is an argument that I see a lot, that’s simply not true. AI is not stealing anything. Theft is a specific legal term. If I steal your TV, I have your TV and you don’t. If AI is trained on some content that content still exists. Whatever training takes place steals nothing.
…because corporations want another excuse to throw more workers on the street in favor of machines…
Your point is a valid one, but this not unique to AI and is the inevitable result of the onward march of technology. The very thing we’re using to communicate right now, the Internet, is responsible for billions of job losses. That’s not a valid reason to get rid of it. Instead of blaming AI for putting people out work, we should be pressuring governments to implement things like UBI to provide people with a basic living wage. That way people need not fear the impact the advance of technology will have on their ability to feed and house themselves.
There are some AI uses that are good though, such as AI voice generation to help those that can’t speak to communicate with the world and not sound like a robot.
These are great examples.
Sure, but there’s never a qualifier in these arguments. It’s just ‘hur dur AI bad’ which is lazy and disingenuous.
Given how harder it’s becoming to tell apart AI slop from something made by a human…
If AI is that good, it’s not ‘slop’, is it? I see this argument all the time. Apparently AI is both awful slop, devoid of merit and also indistinguishable from human made content and a threat to us all. Pick a side.
Most likely you’re correct, but I was basing my assumption from the following:
However, the Port Authority of NSW said no oil spills had been reported by vessels.
Time may tell I guess…
Natural undersea oil leak somewhere?
Actually people are voting for climate action, enough to potentially have swung results in America:
And we see the same in Europe:
And wider:
But as those same articles highlight voting for climate action is a complex topic. Our economic system often makes the worst option the cheapest and easiest, and green policies, done badly, can sometimes end up penalising those who can least afford it which is why climate change is also an inequalities issue:
These are all things which can only be addressed at a governmental level. People are voting in parties because of their Green credentials but it’s down to the incumbent to act on those promises once elected. Unfortunately organisations such as oil companies have a lot of lobbying power which can dull or redirect green policy. It’s up to the public to ensure that this doesn’t happen by making sure climate change remains in the spotlight, thus making it hard for the government to ignore. Which is what groups like JSO are doing, and why the petrochemical companies are so determine to undermine them.
The majority of people see climate action as a priority:
The reason not everyone is voting accordingly is because political motivation is complex. There’s more things pressing for people’s attention like being able to feed, cloth and home themselves. That’s why addressing societal issues like poverty, inequality etc are part of addressing climate change. We need to free up people’s bandwidth to allow them to concentrate on issues like the climate.
High profile protests like this keep the matter of climate change in the spotlight. They prevent it being brushed under the rug by other events and ensure it remains on the political radar. Maybe you’re right in that if you don’t care about climate change JSO are unlikely to change your mind, but if they help to convert even a handful of people, or at least encourage conversations on the topic that they weren’t having before, that’s a win.
Nicely cherry-picked.
69% of experts thought that disruptive tactics were effective for issues (like climate change) that have high public awareness and support. For issues with high awareness but low support (like anti-vaccination), only 30% thought disruptive tactics were effective.
Lucky JSO are about the former, not the latter.
Evidence suggests that disruptive protests actually help, rather than hinder organisations like JSO:
It’s all about raising awareness and facilitating discussions.
Meanwhile petrol companies are doing everything they can to smother protests: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/26/anti-protest-laws-fossil-fuel-lobby
Consider who gains the most from perpetuating the idea that JSO are the bad guys…
Maybe, maybe not. Without clear evidence it’s all supposition. All we know is that, whilst people may not believe it, their actions are effective.
Sure, it’s not a great look I concur
however we’re talking about 2% of their overall funding in 2023:
https://time.com/6334072/just-stop-oil-climate-change-activist-group/
I’d argue that money from a climate fund that was cofounded by the daughter of a oil baron (who appears to be something of a environmental activist), whilst not ideal is a fair way removed from the idea that they are funded by the petrol companies as agent provocateurs.
Also, as I linked the evidence suggest they work, so if the likes of Esso are funding them it’s not their greatest work. Who knows. I believe they get a bad wrap. If anything I imagine it’s more likely the petrol companies are the ones pushing the negative narratives around groups like JSO to try and mute their effectiveness and turn the public against them.
I mean, sure, but again the evidence suggest otherwise: https://www.apollosurveys.org/social-change-and-protests/
And as the articles I originally linked above shows the general public may think otherwise, which is understandable.
Evidence suggests that disruptive protests actually help, rather than hinder organisations like JSO:
It’s all about raising awareness and facilitating discussions.
If you ever want good news these are some good places to start:
Stay positive, friend!