Yes. 👏

Thank you.

Great and sober answer.

I promise, objective qualities are fare easier to define than subjective ones like “soulless”.

Don’t really know the definition of AI bro, but most people here would probably put me in that box.

How can someone not value the ingenuity and creativity behind a work of art?

Generative AI can for sure be creative. It can synthesize new information, probably similar to how your brain synthesize new information.

I really don’t care if some random blockbuster CGI is the product of an artificial or organic neural network. The movie probably suck either way. I don’t have an emotional attachment to things made by people whom I don’t know and who uses a craft or art which I don’t care much about. If my son made a drawing I will probably like it even if it looks like crap. And I would like it if he used an AI tool to produce something cool too.

Just think about it for a second or two. You probably use lots if things without caring about if it was made using an “artificial” process or made by hand.

Also, likely you wouldn’t be in a position where you had the luxury to even reason about this subject, if automatic processing and artificials never became a thing. Everything in your life would just be about survival. Computers wouldn’t exist for sure.

For some reason you don’t like it when you’re aware that some “art” was made, using automatic processing or “AI”. And that’s fine. But don’t expect different people to feel the same. That goes for about anything.

Do these people not see or feel the human behind it all?

Speaking for myself, no. But there are exceptions. Like if something is made by a loved one. Though it’s because the object makes me think of that person, and if it was made specifically for me, I know that person care about me.

And are these really opinions that you’ve encountered outside of the internet?

I know few people who feel as you do. And the ones who do, usually don’t know much about technology and also haven’t given much thought to the philosophy of this subject. The only people I can think of, that share your feelings and are vocal about it, are hobby “creators” of “art”. My guess is that you’re part of a pretty small but loud minority and that you will change your mind when you’ve given this subject a bit more thought. If you can realize how you can utilize this new tool in your practice, you will provably change your mind quicker.

I do programming for a living and I think that AI code assistants are awesome and that they really boost my productivity. I can spend more time on the interesting and hard parts of programming. But the tool would suck if it wasn’t for my knowledge, skill and final touch. In the hands of someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing, it will produce bad results faster (which usually is what junior developers do, with or without AI assistance).

Most people probably don’t care how something was made, as long as the final product is cheaper and/or of the same or better objective quality. Also, I think that most people are glad that they’re now able the produce their own content without having to learn the specific craft or art involved. I’ve had a good time for sure. Overall, I think this AI thing is a very good and democratic development in society.

Nick Bostrom recently released a book on this subject. I haven’t read it yet, but it’s standing in my bookshelf at least. (I deleted the other comment with the link.) https://nickbostrom.com/deep-utopia/

deleted by creator

My belief is that most women belive they want a sensitive man (after all, that’s the cultural norm), until they actually get one. It’s not super cool IRL unfortunately. Though it’s very rare that women admits this to themselves or others. Usually you can find another believable excuse, that fits with the norm. Abnormal sensitivity often comes with extra baggage.

But there are of course exceptions, and that’s what you should look for if you’re a guy and know you’re on the more sensitive side of the spectrum.

Also don’t fall for any of that “patriarchy” crap that is being spammed here. It’s just a useless concept (or religion). Usually advocated by people with close to zero life experience and a taste for conspiracy theories. And in this context its almost dangerous, because even if it was true, advocates draw the wrong conclusions (like that a less patriarchal society would appreciate sensitive men more). If you want to understand why the world feels injust or that you’ve been fooled, I would start with reading about evolutionary game theory and maybe look at Robert Sapolskys video lectures on human behavior biology on YouTube. Then do some reading on moral realism (and why it’s stupid). If you’re American (sorry) its probably more likely that you are a firm believer in moral realism and that you don’t know much about evolution and biology. Don’t go for Jordan Peterson because he’s just a completely incoherent thinker (or simply put, a quite stupid guy), who’s also into mysticism. Or maybe just read some Peterson and you will hopefully understand. He’s very average, but had good timing I guess.

I don’t think unbiased media exist. But some are at least less biased. And you want some bias towards scientific reasoning, honesty and meritocracy. Otherwise you introduce too much noise (which is one reason why being absolute about free speech leads to less free speech, and also the reason electronic warfare is something prioritized by politically weak and/or military weak state actors). Less noise usually correlate with what people perceive as left leaning or liberal bias (in the western political landscape of 2025). Might be very related to this. Also, I think it’s OK with biased media as long as one is open and explicit about it.

In Sweden I use Omni which is a commercial news aggregator, which I find relatively unbiased or balanced. Public service is pretty good as well.

For American news, I usually go for NPR first. Don’t know if they are super unbiased, but at least they are not full on crazy.

I’ve tried Ground News, but I feel it’s a bit too focused on politics of the English speaking sphere.

I don’t know if it’s sexist but it sure as hell is annoying. Don’t tell people to smile if you don’t have a very good reason.

Ah! LOL!

Ok, I rephrase. Zero ads on Lemmy. 🙂

There are huge subreddits that are basically dead or just filled with spam. The ratio of active/passive users on Lemmy must be much much larger. A Lemmy community with 100 active members almost feels like a subreddit with 10 000 members.

To be fair, that happens on Reddit as well.

I’m an active user who post and comment regularly, and I would say that the experience is very similar to Reddit. Except for less adds and smaller numbers on the main/all page. The experience is probably very different if you’re mainly a passive consumer of content.

Though I’ve never been active in “large” subreddits and I tend to block them from my feed. So guess I don’t know what I’m missing.

Just quit.

deleted by creator

Finally!

Yes, but it is still preferable to have this behavior. Just as I think it’s preferable to have “please do not track”, even though it’s being removed now. See my other reply. 99% will use the reference implement unless it sucks.

You should still warn users that what you post on the internet probably stays on the internet. Somewhere.

I don’t understand what you mean. I don’t count on anything. See my other reply.

Yes, but all that is true for Facebook, Reddit and whatever. It’s still nice to have this feature in the “reference” implementation of Lemmy. I think. Then it will also be easier for instance owners and moderators to follow any local laws that requires this.

I don’t know if this is already in the ActivityPub protocol, but it would be nice if all instances who has a copy of some content, deletes it, if it has been marked “request for deletion” by the creator or the owner of the instance where it was first posted. There will always be actors that store specifically all posts that’s been marked for delete, but I still think this is preferable.