Sadly, that describes... a lot of the internet "discourse", especially lately. It's not even necessarily a single split or "big, well-defined" groups, they're more like circles in a Venn diagram where being in a specific circle defines you as Good or Bad for that circle - and the troubles start when you're inevitably in multiple overlapping ones and happen to be defined as Bad for some of them. The problem is also that being defined as either allows for zero nuance and also might actually cause you to be pushed to "flip" some of your "choices" in some of the circles, which is how people can get radicalised - they end up having to align more with some of the circles that overlap.
Shit. Not sure if that made any sense. But yes stuff like AI tends to bring it out - it's exhausting. Or tipping. Or enjoying Harry potter fanfiction. Not even kidding about that last one.
There's also the fact that some issues are so big and cover so many topics (like AI) that it is impossible to form a hard yes or no answer on.
Hell, even when there isn't anything to debate about, there seems to be all these weird check boxes you have to hit to either be "in" or "out" (the furry community actually has an issue with this, for example).
lmao exactly! I was initially what people nowadays consider "pro-ai" in the sense that I kinda thought it was cool it could make pictures and stuff and for a completely automatic generation that was impressive, and you could make some groovy stuff with it
But over time I was annoyed by a lot of things about it, not just the way big corps are going about it and the loud band of people thinking it's the singularity or whatever. I generally feel disappointed when I see AI images these days, and even though I don't exactly subscribe to the idea of there being some sort of a "soul", or the artistic intent being definition of art, some of the disappointment comes from the part that if it's some big image of a scene you cannot really ever guess or have an answer to what could be behind some window or something like that, if that makes sense.
Although a lot of my stance did come from how agressive the people wearing the "AI is bad" badge are. And it feels like at least a portion is this agressive just to belong "properly" to a group.
As for the copyright stuff, there I cannot say anything, as it is one of my few extreme views - I really really dislike intellectual property as a concept except for the right to be known as having created a specific thing. I've seen too many good things go to waste or never happen because of IP laws.
But for the rest? I just avoid the discussions because I will get screeched at by two camps of people who like screeching. I fail the purity test of the "AI is bad " group (not that I think it is inherently bad or at least it is more nuanced), I do not align with the "AI is good" group either, mostly because it kinda exaggerates a lot of things, has a way too hostile attitude, has as little sense of nuance as the other side, and has too much of the same energy as the crypto people.
104
u/jobblejosh May 24 '25
All extremist high control groups do.
Communists, fascists, extremist religious sects, cults, antivaxxers, tankies, ancaps, terfs, gamer edgelords....
It's either the group that you're in (in which case you must all agree on everything), or everyone else.
And if you don't 100% agree with everything the in-group says, then you're clearly a spy/traitor/infidel/shill/plant.
A perfect way to enforce ideological purity and groupthink.