I ABHOR how normalised AI has become on platforms around the World Wide Web
It’s lazy and a ultimatumon effort and autodidatic capacity.
You are actively resorting to waste hydropower energy and drag us into potential water shortage pandemonium just to lobotomized what could’ve been a perfectly good joke.
This is one of the online exertions that treasonous vermin Trump wants you to enact to entail his horrible totalitarian deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions .
Stop appeasing to that oligarch genocide funding clown and his immoral calavry of fascist oppressors who operates utilities that are primarily made to pollute our ecosystem and increase climate change and ocean levels raising.
If I ever see another shitty No-effort AI Picture like this again, I will actively and violently scratch out my eyes with a rusty garden weasel wrapped in mint condition barbed wire and sandpaper the wounded sockets shut so I could never see slop take control of meme subculture.
Is it that sophisticated to edit Trump’s head over a keyboardist’s anatomy?
My takeNot just AI, but I recognized the use of it to create music videos featuring leaders. “Iran so far away” was a very popular video from months ago that racked up millions of views on YouTube.
And the creator is about as obviously a fascist as they could be without stating it outright.
Fascists clearly do not mind anybody who just memes on the people in power.
Look.
The thing about a new technology is that once it exists, it never un-exists.
AI is here. It’s never going away. Ever.
There are all sorts of actual concerning issues about AI that need to be taken extremely seriously. Personally, I could care less if it gets used to generate memes. It’s not like memes are meant to look like actual, real situations that could trick people into thinking something that didn’t happen did or vice versa. It’s clearly for a laugh. It’s not putting “meme artists” out of business because there is no industry for memes where people are putting their memes in meme galleries that people buy tickets to.
Getting mad over AI generated memes specifically just seems like a waste of energy. Like you’re trying to find something to be mad about.
But here’s the question… how much could you care less?
Great, another “AI sucks and I’m so much more enlightened because I don’t like or use AI” post.
The irony of using the internet on a device to post about the energy consumption of AI while relying on that same general infrastructure and energy consumption to make and distribute the post is… rather fantastic.
If OP really wanted to make a point about reducing AI usage, there is something amusing about using an internet-based service to make that argument.
And the fact that the joke is considered unfunny specifically because it was AI-generated seems like a particularly strange criticism. Whether someone personally likes or dislikes AI is certainly their prerogative, but that doesn’t really tell anyone anything about whether the joke itself works. It’s a little like saying, “I don’t like this joke because of the tool that was used to make it.”
The irony of using the internet on a device to post about the energy consumption of AI
Oh no. Another “you are critical of capitalism and yet iPhone” post.
the joke is considered unfunny specifically because it was AI-generated
It’s unfunny because it’s lazy and cheap. The AI only further illustrates how lazy and how cheap.
You could have done this in paint.net inside 20 minutes.
You could have done this in paint.net inside 20 minutes.
So you’re admitting it’s no work of art that should require lots of time and effort to create?
So why not use AI? Clearly you believe memes are something that should be cheap, easy, and quick to do. I agree. Why waste valuable time making a meme? Memes should be relatively low effort jokes. So why not use AI? It’s one of the least harmful ways to use AI.
I apologize for bringing your logical fallacies to light. I realize pointing them out is intellectually lazy, but unfortunately it seems necessary when they make up the basis of the rebuttal.
You’re conflating the effort required to manufacture an image with the effort involved in creating the joke. The context of the joke isn’t who manufactured the image; it’s who made the joke. The AI didn’t independently decide that Netanyahu, Trump, and Ed Sheeran standing on a stage would be funny. A person came up with that concept and used AI as the tool to produce it.
You could have made the same image in Paint.NET in 20 minutes. Great. That doesn’t demonstrate that the joke is lazy, and it certainly doesn’t demonstrate that it’s unfunny. It demonstrates that you prefer a different method of producing the image.
And “lazy” isn’t a synonym for “unfunny.” If I spend twenty hours painstakingly creating the exact same image in Photoshop, the joke doesn’t magically become funnier because I invested more labor into manufacturing the pixels.
If you don’t find the joke funny, that’s perfectly fine. But that’s a subjective reaction, not an argument. If your argument is that the joke itself is lazy, then explain why the idea is lazy. The fact that the production of the image was automated doesn’t establish that.
For the record, your rebuttal relies on several logical fallacies. The “you criticize AI while using the internet” comparison is a false analogy because my point was about the irony of criticizing the energy consumption of one internet-based activity while participating in another, not that you are somehow forbidden from criticizing technology you use. Your claim that the image is lazy because it was AI-generated is essentially circular reasoning because you are using the use of AI as both the evidence and the conclusion that the work was lazy. And saying that it could have been made in Paint.NET in 20 minutes is a non sequitur: the amount of effort required to produce an image does not establish whether the underlying joke is funny or whether the person who conceived it was creative. Those arguments don’t establish your conclusion; they simply assert it from different directions.
Is this an AI generated response?
Yes.
This response was also AI generated.
No doofus it wasn’t.
Google keyboard has a grammar and spelling check that’s powered by AI and that is what I use because it’s the quickest way to type all that up.
The words however are my own.
This response was also AI generated.
Gotcha
hEy cHaT Is tHiS CoMmEnT Ai?
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world in a nutshell
Tbh many people don’t use PCs at all, and the advent of cheap generative ai for image manipulation makes this kind of creative task more accessible to those people. I hate it. I would like to put the touch screen genie back in the bottle. But it is too late.
The verbosity of your interlocution is positively sesquipedalian.
While I do agree that AI is not environmentally friendly, the only way the hype train is going to die is when investors quit dumping money into it.
While many of you may hate me for this, I intentionally waste it. Arguing with it saying the sky is green, asking it to write code and telling it the code doesn’t work, etc.
Maxing out my free account usage intentionally by just asking pointless questions and never giving up. Every prompt drains just a little bit of these investors confidence that their investment will ever turn a profit.
Profit is clearly the only thing they care about. Hit em where it hurts.
you are not more clever than the cocaine you consume
Credits to pmjv
Did you eat a thesaurus?
You do realize they’re exctinct?
I liked the imagery of you scratching your eyes out.
Don’t mind the people shitting on your writing! It’s fine.
Also, I wonder about this. I don’t like using GenAI for a few reasons, one of them is the environmental impact, but it’s by no means the biggest. Not even close. It really is barely a reason at all.
It’s a tool… I think it’s immorally constructed and mostly in bad taste, but the environment is really a much deeper failure than the individual, I think. I don’t think campaigning against people using something mindlessly, ignorantly perhaps, blithely even, does much good, when you could spend that time convincing them that the big stuff, and there’s big stuff like data centers if we wanna just stick to AI, should be banned or regulated to oblivion.
“Don’t use GenAI” is fine, but “Data centers suck” results in the same thing and doesn’t attack the individual for some perceived moral failing for doing something innocuous while surrounded by terrible shit.
Hopefully you get what I’m getting at!
OMG the irony of using AI to rail against the use of AI.
Bluesky leftists really like using AI for some reason
The industry paid a lot of money to influencers like Taylor Lorenz to do some entryism.
This post looks like it was written by an ai that had a stroke.
Chatgprrrrrrttttrrrlll…
the - sau - rus
As with pollution, the biggest contributers are not the individual consumers.
They still contribute by counting as usage to help justify more datacenters for training.
Doesn’t count nearly as much as all the water used to farm alfalfa in the desert for the Saudis. AI sucks, this is just a way for corporate AI to push blame on consumers. They want people to push this line cause it’s catchy and easily countered.
Even just cloud storage uses a surprising amount of energy. I’ve my students calculate a price per rick roll just to start seeing that there are actual energy costs and usage associated with things like google search, storing a cloud file, etc. I forget the paradox name, but we’ve made storing files and the cloud (that is, using other people’s computers) so easy and efficient that we are now using even more energy.
calculate a price per rick roll
So… how much is it? It must be significantly more than a goatse.
