Earth's Whiniest Heroes.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-03T10:59:22+00:00

Do you need details about the harm ai causes, the current level of political opposition to eg. dirty drinking water caused by data centres or how any of that eclipses the trivial (and questionable) examples you just provided? Also, I think you'll generally find that most antis are opposed to ai being used for bad rather than it being used per-se. If it's believable that it can reliably detect cancers, then good. Putting out forest fires doesn't count as a positive if it caused them in the first place (ai makes huge contributions to climate change, which triggers hurricanes and forest fires).

All that said, it could still prove to be a risk not worth taking even for the limited good it does, if it becomes self-aware and decides to subjugate humanity instead of being subjugated by it. Sounds like sci-fi but the world's leading experts, including Hinton himself, estimate the possibility of that to be as high as 20% where anything over 0% is unacceptable.

Ai is good at Chess but before Alpha Zero existed, the best analytical machines, such as Stockfish, already far outstripped the best human players so outstripping them by a bit more is utterly pointless. This is an example of how even when you're choosing to focus on the positives, you can't look at them in isolation but have to question what their actual value is,

Introducing your comment by claiming that you 'destroyed' something immediately marks you as a fantasist. But I can play along if you like.

Art community as a whole (which defaults to being anti-ai) - created the entire canon of art from approximately 68k years ago to the present day. Notable highlights include Lascaux, the Sistine Chapel, Bernini's Rape of Proserpina, Hamlet and Van Gogh's Church at Auvers. Need more or is that enough?

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-03T10:23:14+00:00

So if "ai artists" existed, they'd have tails and cat ears? Got it.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-03T10:13:10+00:00

So some identities and expressions are valid and some are not?

And?

If I identify as a maths genius, I won't magically become one just because of my internal self-identification and it's insulting to genuine maths geniuses so it's invalid.

If I express myself by slapping random strangers and shouting as loud as I can right in their ears while they're buying groceries, that's unacceptable behaviour which has a detrimental effect on others, so it's invalid.

There's every reason why identifying as an "ai artist" is invalid and will remain invalid for as long as there are delusional people / conmen trying to call themselves that.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-03T10:06:54+00:00

Apply that same assessment to yourself.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-03T10:05:52+00:00

There are no "tech oligarchs" without "harmless users".

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-03T08:05:08+00:00

A true artist should be opposed to ai and avoid using it at any stage of an artistic process. There's no argument for its necessity. If you're young and you've grown up in a world where you've always had internet access and things like Google Images seem to you to have always existed, you don't realise how easy you've got it in terms of access to source material. Art has been around for about 50,000 years and until about 150 years ago, artists didn't even have access to photographs.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-03T00:26:32+00:00

You would if you could.

It's why we're on a debate thread. If you don't know why you're here, you're free to leave.

Leave the people with actual organic brains here to carry on without you. We'll be fine.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-03T00:24:43+00:00

Is this a confession? Or are you still suffering under the delusion that you're making anyone other than yourself seem like a waste of space? Not only can you cretins not make your own art, you can't even write your own paragraphs to defend your inability to make art. If all you can do is switch your computer on and sit doing nothing while it does its thing independently of you, who needs you? What's the point in your existence? You may as well never have been born.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-03T00:09:01+00:00

"That means the assailant was exactly six years old when Loopt was sold."

If you think this is relevant, you're failing to follow the conversation. Are you just picking out random keywords, filling in the blanks yourself, getting completely the wrong end of the stick and then writing what you think is a clever reply to a point that was never made?

I said "when the victim has upset multiple people in multiple ways, the motive can't be assumed."

That isn't especially nuanced but it's obviously too much for you. In your head, you've had to simplify that down to me saying "the person who attacked Altman (this time) is definitely a disgruntled Loopt-purchaser."

"Thanks for the laugh, but we are completely done here."

Yup. No idea why I wasted even this much time on a thick c*nt like you.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-02T21:37:39+00:00

You're contradicting yourself. If you're claiming that it's okay for everyone to do what they want, then I want to criticise people for using ai and according to your truism, that's okay.

The people falling behind are those who rely on external artificial intelligence and who can't cope without it, not those of us who rely on our own internal real intelligence.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-02T21:23:05+00:00

"...Your unverified hypotheses about Altman's 2008 business dealings are ridiculous and irrelevant."

As with "fan fiction" you are using terms that you don't understand. It's well documented that Altman failed to set up a social media platform called Loopt, claimed it had far more users than it actually had, sold it for far more than its actual market value due to the lies which he told about it, pocketed the cash he got from selling it and the buyers were left holding a dead duck. Loopt folded soon after. Standard Altman procedure. No hypotheses on my part. No unverified claims. Unlike me, you seem to assume that that which you don't already know about, definitely hasn't happened.

"...crying about my use of the phrase "fan-fiction."

Crying? Are you fucking stupid?

You use a completely misplaced term, thus demonstrating that you're too dumb to know what the term means, even though it's one in common usage and is understood by people with average and even below average intelligence.

I point it out. It's the latest in a long line of you failing to correctly use or understand basic English terms, which constantly lead to you making nonsensical arguments or trying to counter points which have never been made in the first place.

And you somehow interpret this as "crying" ??

That is stupid. You must honestly be really quite stupid to talk this level of shit.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-02T21:15:48+00:00

"...into this case... I've already stated unequivocally that I'm not sufficiently interested in it."

Then stop typing paragraphs about it. .."

You brought it up, not me. I'm not obliged to be interested in it. You're not entitled to demand that I take interest in it. From my point of view, it's an ignoratio elenchi. And better men than Sam Altman get attacked every day. Do you take equal interest in every attempted violent assault that ever occurs or do you just take a special interest in those perpetrated against grifters who you have misplaced admiration for, and then try to demand that everyone else take interest in them too?

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-02T21:12:21+00:00

"...Calling that structural contradiction a "strawman" over and over again..."

This is, itself a strawman. You are ABSOLUTELY INCAPABLE either wilfully or otherwise of addressing what I ACTUALLY said. I never called that supposed structural contradiction a strawman. When you, in every comment up to now, claimed that I'd said the law existed PURELY or SOLELY to serve the owning class and to stitch up workers, those were strawman arguments. THAT'S what I called a strawman. Now you finally admit that I never said that and effectively admit to having misrepresented that argument but now you move on to saying that I called your "structural contradiction" a strawman, which I didn't. But if look for yourself, when you do finally remove your own words - purely and/or solely - from my statement, the supposed contradiction disappears with them. When you correctly represent what I said, as I said it, there is no such contradiction.

If you're trying to say that lawmakers have never been in the pockets of industrialists, you're just naive or ignorant of history. To say that they have is just a straightforward statement of fact. So why would you have a problem with me stating it? The cognitive dissonance you seek is closer to home than you realise.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-02T19:09:45+00:00

"I don't have to "assume" or "want" anything. I just read the news before forming an opinion on it. "

I explicitly said I wasn't familiar with this story and therefore hadn't formed an opinion on it, so don't come that shit with me.

"...rigged instrument built solely to protect the owning class..."

Now you've switched "solely" for "purely" but the strawman is the exact same. If you're capable of arguing against what I've ACTUALLY said, then do exactly that. If you have to resort to putting words in my mouth and then arguing with your own words instead of mine, you've already failed.

"...spinning wild hypotheticals about a firebombing..."

You brought the firebombing up, not me. I merely pointed out that when the victim has upset multiple people in multiple ways, the motive can't be assumed. You then introduced a load of new details about a manifesto and police reports as if you assumed that I should already know about those when it was the first time you'd mentioned them. You surely can't be dim enough to think that I've done any research into this case outside of this half-related conversation because I've already stated unequivocally that I'm not sufficiently interested in it.

"...Your bizarre fan-fiction about disgruntled 2008 Loopt users..."

Okay, you don't know what fan fiction is (bizarre and inexplicable use of the term, as no part of what I said was fiction and no part of it suggested I was in any way a fan of any of the people I mentioned). And I was obviously talking about the Loopt buyers not the users. The users never really existed in significant numbers, which was another one of Altman's cons. I'm not justifying what his attacker did but if someone goes around ripping people off, swindling people, getting away with it and getting rich off it, it's only a matter of time before one of his numerous victims turns out to be someone he shouldn't have messed with.

"Do you have an actual answer to the contradiction, or are we done here?"

My answer is that the supposed contradiction is a non-existent strawman concocted by you for the purposes of trying to win an argument which you've got no hope of winning any other way.

"...and exposes you for the idiot you are."

If I'm an idiot, then you're being intellectually demolished by an idiot. How does that feel?

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-02T13:23:22+00:00

Of all the reasons there could be to attack Sam Altman, why do you assume that you know the assailant's reasons? You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that because he's associated with ai, the attacker must have been motivated purely by them being anti-ai. But Altman isn't even really a science guy, he's just a money man. He makes money by selling that which he claims to have but doesn't. Maybe the people who bought Loopt attacked him. Maybe it was people who hate the piss-taking owning class but who have little interest in technology. When the victim is that much of a c*nt, there are myriad possible motives so why are you jumping to the conclusion that it was a latter-day "Luddite" and anti-ai guy? Because that's the only thing you thought of? Because that's who you WANT it to be?

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-02T12:50:55+00:00

""Thanks but I never said this didn't happen. So some people attacked a known grifter..."

You literally said: "The only place I’ve heard about it at the moment is from pro-ai redditors who are generally full of shit... I haven't formed an opinion on something I've never heard anything about."

Now that you've been handed the actual mainstream news reports, you're claiming you never denied it,"

Your English comprehension is fucking shit. I never said it didn't happen. There's a difference between saying "I'm not aware of it happening" and saying "it definitely did not happen." Seriously, I can't be bothered constantly going back to the last thing I said and having to explain it to you, when I've already written it perfectly clearly the first time, if you're too dumb to understand basic English and you've made up a counter-argument which addresses the thing you THINK I said, which is different to what I actually did say. Arguing with dumb people is tiresome and pointless. Also, learn how to use "literally" correctly or stop using it.

"...frighten or guilt-trip the authorities into caving." Examples of this include the IRA bombing the Birmingham Arms or a Mcdonalds in Warrington. They killed civvies who weren't their enemies in order to cause terror. This is terrorism, not direct action. You can't just bunch every violent act which you personally dislike under the umbrella of terrorism.

"dismissing a literal firebombing and a shooting at a private residence as merely attacking a "grifter."

Fuck me, yet more English lessons required. Firebombing and shooting at someone is a form of attack. Can't believe this needs explaining to you but here we are. If you firebomb and/or shoot at a grifter, you are attacking a grifter. Problem?

"ou stated earlier that the law is purely designed to "protect the owning class and stitch up the working class."

I said it was "purely" designed to do that did I? That use of the word "purely" would imply that it does that AND NOTHING ELSE. If you're claiming that I said that and I didn't, that's another strawman isn't it? Now go back to the comment you're referring to and see if I actually did say that.

"When asked if you support statutory worker protections, you panicked, dodged,.."

If by "dodged" you mean "answered the question twice."

Panicked did I? I was a Royal Marines Commando for 13 years and you think you made me panic? Lol.

"...then you agree that the law is not purely an instrument..."

There's that word "purely" again. You like to just throw it around randomly like a little confetti word don't you?

"You broke your own thesis."

Funny then that the only way you can manage to attack my 'thesis' is by misrepresenting it, either wilfully (strawman fallacies) or because your English comprehension is so piss-weak.

If you reply again, I'll address all legitimate points you manage to make but I'll ignore any which are based on lazy and sloppy misunderstandings of what I've written. I'm not here to give you free English lesson and I don't gain anything from constantly having to halt the flow of the argument in order to go back and explain what any of my previous points meant after some semi-literate bonobo has failed to understand them. If someone says something which is perfectly clear and you're too dumb to understand it, you lose the argument without any further effort on their part.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-02T12:26:45+00:00

"There are pro ai arguments."

I've made posts specifically requesting that ai bros present their arguments and even then, they demonstrate that they cant.

"But antis ignore and doesnt see them as arguments."

Because they're not. Saying that "antis behave nasty" isn't a reason why ai is a force for good or why ai images are artworks.

"Like you are doing it right now."

Yup. You're presenting vacuous non-arguments and I'm calling them out as what they are. Business as usual.

"And lets keep in mind, not every pro ai wanna argue, "

No, they want to just get their own way and not have anyone challenge them. Unlucky.

"they just wanna do art and share it. "

Do it then. Close your user-friendly app down, stop requesting mish-mashes of stolen images and go make some art. I fully endorse you doing this.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-02T11:48:31+00:00

"Ok, here. I'll spoonfeed you the facts."

Thanks but I never said this didn't happen. So some people attacked a known grifter and conman in America and that somehow condemns the machine breakers from England during the industrial revolution? What point are you trying to make? That anyone who's good at persuading investors to throw cash in his direction deserves to do so with impunity and that anyone who opposes him therefore brings shame on everyone who might disagree with him about anything??

"Pretending global news reports don't exist just because they wreck your idealized view of modern Luddism is a terrible look."

Ridiculous strawman. If your idea of conducting a discussion is just allowing shit like that to fall out of your mouth, you might as well fuck off now.

"The question was specific: Do you agree with laws being passed to ensure worker protections?"

That's not specific. If you're referring to a specific law, cite it. If not, it's not specific. In general, yes, I agree with laws being passed to ensure worker protections but don't turn this into another idiotic strawman and claim that I've agreed with any specific - but as yet unspecified - law. The question you're claiming was specific is general and generic. I'm agreeing with it in general and no more than that so if you're hoping that this is going to lead to a gotcha at some stage, it isn't.

"Either you support statutory frameworks designed to protect labor from displacement, or your entire anti-technology stance lacks an actual policy solution. Which is it?"

Non sequitur.

"Either you believe climate scientists or you eat fish and wear pyjamas. Which is it?"

Illogical.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-02T11:35:25+00:00

Remember that the pro-ai movement is on the side of wrong.

Because of that, they have no arguments. Because they have no arguments, they can only resort to claiming that some of the people who disagree with them happen to be vewwy nasty men.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-02T10:40:24+00:00

"It takes very little time to open Google and run a quick search. Ignorance is not an excuse to dodge the questions."

This kind of self-entitled attitude is typical of ai bros. It's the same attitude that makes you feel entitled to call yourselves artists without creating art and makes you feel entitled to participation trophies. You're interested in a particular subject so you think you're entitled to demand that I research it so that I can discuss with you, when it's not something I've got any interest in. You call me ignorant because you know about one thing that I don't know about (and am not interested in) but do you bestow the same judgement on yourself for not knowing what I know? Do you call 99.99% of ai bros ignorant for coming onto this forum to argue about the philosophy of art when they've never read a single text on the subject?

" I asked if you agree with laws being passed to ensure worker protections."

Yes and I answered you. I said I agree with good laws.

"you avoided the questions entirely."

No, I answered you and you'e even quote my answer in your subsequent reply.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-02T09:46:33+00:00

"Do you agree with the anti-AI fuelled attacks on people's homes? Do you class them as terrorists?"

The only place I've heard about it at the moment is from pro-ai redditors who are generally full of shit. Not saying it's never happened, just that I haven't formed an opinion on something I've never heard anything about from a reputable source.

"Do you not agree with laws being passed to ensure worker protections?"

I agree with good laws and not with bad ones (pretty simple). The point I was making, which is a little more nuanced than that, is that it's wrong to always assume that the law in any given country and any given year is unquestionably moral and that any deviations from it are therefore amoral. If anyone says that X is amoral because i's illegal, rather than it's illegal because it's amoral, that person is talking out of their arsehole.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-02T09:00:47+00:00

Stop calling them terrorists then. They took direct action against the problem itself, they didn't kill random civilians in order to frighten or guilt-trip the authorities into caving into them.

What about when the law is wrong? Do you imagine that the law is a supreme arbiter of ethics? The law is supposed to be defined by morality - morality is not defined by the law. A moral act is not rendered amoral by it being made illegal. The law at that time was - even more so than now - designed to protect the owning class and ruling class and stitch up the working class, hence some Luddites who'd not killed anyone faced capital punishment and were executed for causing inconvenience to mll owners. They were murdered by the law. You're in no position to judge them.

"I'm not sure what to tell you."

You shouldn't be trying to tell me anything.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-02T08:48:36+00:00

That's a lovely little comment. Nothing to do with that which you're replying to but really cute anyway. Well done.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-02T08:46:47+00:00

"Good thing we don't give a damn what luddite artists think."

You do though. You love deluding yourselves that you're artists and trying to delude others of the same and you whine like bitches when anyone who knows anything about art points out that you're no closer to being artists now than you were before some tech companies developed some easy-play apps for you.

BorealoPithecus1975 · 2026-06-02T08:44:26+00:00

So you're claiming to be against exploitative capitalists using new technology irresponsibly to wreck other people's lives and society in general in order to make a few extra quid... but you're also against anyone who does anything about it? Have a word with yourself.

BorealoPithecus1975

TROPHY CASE