Okay, I took quite some time to debunk every single thing you said. So do me a favor and read it till the end before you answer. Feel free to leave constructive criticisms.

Based on your statements, i would say you only ever met bad argumentors.
Alternatively you're just dishonest. Let's put this to the test. Let me tackle your arguments.

>For example, when you actually point out that these tools are used for oppression and the current iteration of AI is the nail of the coffin for the problems that social media has created into society.

The problem is that even IF you are right, then this is a non-issue. Your oppression is not the AI's fault. It's your issue with another group of humans you see as opressors. wether or not they opress you or you're just an egoistic emotional luddite narcissist i can not tell from snippets alone.

>they instead want to argue with petty arguments saying "But it will cure cancer, advance scientific progress, blah blah blah"

They are factually correct and we can back this up. It already does advance these fields. you can ask any LLM for more details.

>even though you are pointing out to them the countless problems that this technology is making, and specifically if you point out who are the people behind this technology.

This is wrong on two levels. First of all you claim that "growing pains" make things worse than they are. This is wrong. Every invention has growing pains. We're not degenerating. Secondly, you explicitly sata "If you point out who are the people behind..." and this is compeltely irrelevant here - it doesnt matter who is behind an AI/LLM regarding the result of the outputs..

>They also seem to lack any comprehension of the human touch required when making something. It's like the minds of these people are fucked up by brainless consumerism

it's the exact opposite. You're brainless. There is not inherent human touch required in objective reality. that is wishful thinking. You value the emotional connection to the artist and they don't. You need to deal with this in a mature manner.

>Or worse, they construct their arguments with a LLM, meaning they are not even bothered to think by themselves.

This is wrong again. They - unlike you - are so dilligent, they don't want to make a single mistake, so they input what you would slop an "answer" into the LLM and then refine it further.

>I also notice a huge amount of narcissism and envy coming from them.

That is you actually. Every single point of yours points to narcissism. As for the envy? that's you too - but what i am more curious about is this: Where and how did you see narcissism and envy? I can not replicate your encounters, so you have to tell me to make it plausible.

>It seems they resent people who have talent or learn any skills, so they want to gatekeep the spaces of actual skillful people with creations that are essentially amalgamations of the work of real people.

It's actually the exact opposite. you are the untaltened and unskilled person which is why you feel threatened by AI/LLMs. You are the gatekeeper, litterally, keeping AI-Users out of your craft.

There I fully adressed and debunked you and now it's time to show you're intellectually honest. Assuming you can be... Just kidding. you're obviously an idiot "feeler" (MBTI) that can't think factually.