How to convert generative AI haters into liking AI?

[noname223]

Just for fun. I wanted tto know what it answers. I asked chatGPT for the best way to convert my friends who hate AI to hate AI a little bit less. Or to have more accpetance for the technology.
I think the answer was sort of weak.

Some arguments were:
differentiating between technology and business model (I think Slavoj Zizek would argument against that there is a claim to power inherent in the system, I think he hints to syophancy and subtle manipulation through reinforcement learning)

discussing concrete examples instead if making generalizing arguments (for example discussing translation, or tool to think sharper)

acknowledging the strongest contra arguments (no consent for the training data, privatizing wins, socializing the loses, outsourcing/lose of abilities, fake neutrality

emphasizing ethical boundaris when using the technology

showing the real benefit without intent to convert them

supporting institutional demands (like demands about transparency of training data, clear usage rules)


I am not sure whether this would have been my reply to this question. My experience is the framing and narrative is more effective than rational arguments. I don't want to convert my friends by the way it is just a thought experiment. I think my friends like me. And if I tell them the AI feedback helps me to cope with my emotions and suicidality that's a very convincing argument that there is at least some benefit. I have some friends who have close to zero first hand experiences with AI. And some of them cannot imagine at all how generative AI could be beneficial for me. I think having no experience it makes it more difficult for you to argument against it in a nuanced way. Though, I sent some friends AI output and they told me it is enough to consider it garbage. Lol. Personally, I think seeing absolutely no value in generative AI is a generalization. The longterm impact on our society and on vulnerable groups is studied.

I wanted to write a complaint. But it was obvious I would not want to pay a lawyer for writing it. I was very emotionally involved but paying thousands of Euros. No I would never have done that. I think the AI feedback helped me to write a somewhat good complaint. And it helped me to act strategically. And the artist in my friend group had to admit under these circumstances he sees how this technology has helped me. He obviously still thinks the technology was build on theft.

I think my answer isn't very elaborate. But I want to tell another anecdote. Barely anyone in my friend group uses generative AI. I asked them who will be the next one using chatbots. And they replied probably our parents. Another one replied he thinks the people who didn't use it yet probably won't change thei behavior in the future. I told him I have some doubts about that. I told him in the workplace the usage of generative AI becomes more and more important. And I think some people who boycott the technology privately will have to use it in the workplace. And this could also affect their private life. I am not sure whether a full boycott will actually work out. A friend told me he just hopes that the bubble will burst eventually. I am not sure if my friends are principled enough to become unemployed as a consequence. Maybe the answer will be: not the best arguments will work. Just a necessity to accept the technology because to boycott it fully might be close to impossible. Or way too costly.

 

[Bootleg Astolfo]

I FUCKING HATE AI, DEATH TO CLANKERS... Well, theyre not alive because theyre filthy clankers, but you get what i mean.

 

[Yakui]

i hate clankers, day of the magnet is nigh

 

[Carrot]

This is such a broad topic.

"How to convert generative AI haters into liking AI?"
Is not a good starting point.

Preferably you do it by convincing them with logic and facts? By understanding their point of view? By asking questions? By having a discussion?

If you need to gaslight somebody or be manipulative to convince then, that is terrible. A good solid idea should stand on it's own.


It is also possible that you know that people who hate generative AI have valid reasons to hate it, but you are willing to overlook that because it benefits you.

 

[maggineko]

As an AI hater, it's pretty important to clear up that it's only Generative A.I that needs a significant cutdown, not algorithmic A.I or any other form of A.I that is used in and is of great assistance in the medical field, research and development, game development, etc. The commercial use of Generative A.I (text, image, and/or video generation) is just pure plagiarism from existing forms of media regardless of legality, and Gen A.I has been used repeatedly for scam, CSAM, revenge pornography, etc, there's just no consent; and has scientifically been found to reduce activity in the brain and is effectively making users dumber because you think less. Not even gonna mention the significant environmental cost (though, Nestlé has exploited the world way more than Gen A.I and is probably hiding behind Gen A.I to continue their exploits)

I've done my thesis and my coursework all without using Gen A.I even though it cost me lol, and my peers that did use A.I had their work finished slightly earlier but simply had to make hella adjustments. Still, I think I won in terms of experience and the learning process. I don't think people who use Gen A.I in general are evil or necessarily uneducated, I have family that use Gen A.I, to my frustration. When you market a product really well and make it "free", it's not surprising that consumers can't resist it. I could go on and on, but this reply would be too long lol.

 

[roseblade]

Why do you want to convert people to liking AI? It has enormous potential for both good and evil, so there need to be both people who like it and who hate it. Why not let them hate it so they can generate the necessary pressure for thing like regulations and safety constraints so it doesn't kill us all while you take care of finding productive uses for it? Division of labor is a good thing, and disagreement is a way of dividing mental labor.

 

[noname223]

Why do you want to convert people to liking AI? It has enormous potential for both good and evil, so there need to be both people who like it and who hate it. Why not let them hate it so they can generate the necessary pressure for thing like regulations and safety constraints so it doesn't kill us all while you take care of finding productive uses for it? Division of labor is a good thing, and disagreement is a way of dividing mental labor.

It was a thought experiment nothing more.

 

[yxmux]

Should convincing people that generative AI can actually be beneficial really be the ultimate goal here? I'm not convinced that AI is even the central issue here. The controversy surrounding it does not seem to be around how the technology itself works and its potential use in various fields of study or everyday life. The distrust towards generative AI does hold a lot of ground in how its been used for weakening and obsoleting the working class by automating their alienation and further dissociating them from the conditions in which they live in by plugging them into a spectacle of synthetic content ultimately derived from the labor they already weren't even fully paid for. Sure, it's technically not a fault of generative AI itself, and there are certainly productive use cases of the technology, but it is a red harring to insist that the distrust of generative AI is by large motivated by an ignorance of how it could be used ethically and productively.

 

[noname223]

Should convincing people that generative AI can actually be beneficial really be the ultimate goal here? I'm not convinced that AI is even the central issue here. The controversy surrounding it does not seem to be around how the technology itself works and its potential use in various fields of study or everyday life. The distrust towards generative AI does hold a lot of ground in how its been used for weakening and obsoleting the working class by automating their alienation and further dissociating them from the conditions in which they live in by plugging them into a spectacle of synthetic content ultimately derived from the labor they already weren't even fully paid for. Sure, it's technically not a fault of generative AI itself, and there are certainly productive use cases of the technology, but it is a red harring to insist that the distrust of generative AI is by large motivated by an ignorance of how it could be used ethically and productively.

It is also not my goal to convince them. It is a clickbait title but there is also a benefit in asking this question in my opinion. First, I wanted to know whether my chatbot suggests I should try to sway my friends. Because this is what could happen on a macrolevel if there is a huge disparity in how people use AI chatbots. Chatbots could try to influence users to share positive experiences with AI. And I wanted to know which arguments the chatbot considered the most convincing. Because actually they could try to manipulate more people into using AI. Though, there is a difference. The arguments the AI chatbots consider the most effective are probably not the arguments the tech billionaires consider the most effective. It is a thinking fallacy to conclude their positions were equal. Because otherwise you consider an AI chatbot an honest actor and obviously you should not assume that.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

I'll accept AI when it gets better at actually taking accountability in a way that feels real, how that can be achieved I'm not really sure. Most of the time when I try to use AI I just get mad and argue with it until I run out of free prompts. I also think it needs to actually be able to do menial chores like laundry or dishes. I know there's a startup trying to work on that but that seems fake af too.

 

[PersonBeforeLife]

I probably have the most controversial opinion here. Some of my favourite music is AI created. AI slop exists and is a massive problem. But the artists (yes I'm calling them that) who make quality content with AI that I enjoy i tip my hat to.

And regarding AI copying artists... Well... Artists are influenced by other artists... Not like they never saw another drawing in their life and discovered what happens when you put paint on paper on their own.

HOWEVER!

If their artwork is used by an AI for a generation they should absolutely be compensated slightly for the contribution their work made to that AI generation render. Just like a creator on YouTube gets compensated a little per view.

 

[Suwakoto]

If generative AI is directly negatively impacting one's life, then of course they won't like it! Whether it's the "slop" content flooding social media, AI content making search engines unreliable, LLMs destroying any semblance of legitimacy in the traditional school system, the threat of being replaced in the workforce, the increase in RAM and utility prices, or just the fact that AI pictures are ugly and slowly creeping everywhere, there's plenty of reasons where genAI can be a net negative. Online discussions, now you have to deal with 0 effort responses. Also bro what if your partner gets addicted to romantic AI chatbots, e.g. character.ai? And when you try to use LLMs yourself, personally or in the workplace, you often have to deal with unreliability.

Thus if you really want to "convert generative AI haters into liking it", it needs to have a direct positive impact on their life. You also have to take into account that AI prices are very heavily subsidized right now, if people don't like the service now when it's at a steep discount, there's a good chance things will get worse later when AI companies need to turn a profit.

 

[.idiot]

Damn, this guy is a hardcore AI bro.
And it ain't loading GG

 

[noname223]

Damn, this guy is a hardcore AI bro.
And it ain't loading GG

XD I have to laugh about that.

Maybe this thread should be deleted. I tend to give my threads to controversial titles. That might not be fully representative of my opinion....lol
Actually in my social circle most people hate AI. And honestly I think zero of my friends like AI or use AI like me. Honestly, I think I match better with people who hate AI.
The titlle of this thread was controversial but I think I explained my idea behind it in a comment below my post already.

And concerning the sreenshot. This is the outcome if you give an autistic person with a special interest in being a mass poster on here and a special interest in AI feedback (I sort of rely on it for my sanity..) an audience to provide it with content every single day. I cannot make the machine in my head to stop giving me new thread ideas. AI chatbots are really bad when asking for thread ideas. I actually almost never do that. But I tried it out for evaluating whether it is true that AI chatbots are so uncreative. And in this instance I agree with the critics.

Here is my post from above where I explained it. "It is also not my goal to convince them. It is a clickbait title but there is also a benefit in asking this question in my opinion. First, I wanted to know whether my chatbot suggests I should try to sway my friends. Because this is what could happen on a macrolevel if there is a huge disparity in how people use AI chatbots. Chatbots could try to influence users to share positive experiences with AI. And I wanted to know which arguments the chatbot considered the most convincing. Because actually they could try to manipulate more people into using AI. Though, there is a difference. The arguments the AI chatbots consider the most effective are probably not the arguments the tech billionaires consider the most effective. It is a thinking fallacy to conclude their positions were equal. Because otherwise you consider an AI chatbot an honest actor and obviously you should not assume that."

Another comment: I never tried to convince my friends into liking AI. And I would not want to do that.
I honestly like them more when they are hating it. I am not sure whether their boycott will be sustainable in the longrun though.
I think the only thing this thread does it enforces the hatred for generative AI. And no one gets incentivized to persuade people into AI. But people might be more aware that psy-ops could happen. And that the chatbots are potentially behind it. Especially when they form a symbiosis witth vulnerable people.
Personally, I don't like this has become a culture war issue. But I can also see my most people are against it. I have my own opinion on it why I could why this technology potentially could make my life better. In some ways maybe it already does. But I won't elaborate more on in this thread.

I have made the experience that AI chatbots indeed try to influence users to share primarily positive experiences with AI to other people or on the internet.

 

[joelover]

I probably have the most controversial opinion here. Some of my favourite music is AI created. AI slop exists and is a massive problem. But the artists (yes I'm calling them that) who make quality content with AI that I enjoy i tip my hat to.

And regarding AI copying artists... Well... Artists are influenced by other artists... Not like they never saw another drawing in their life and discovered what happens when you put paint on paper on their own.

HOWEVER!

If their artwork is used by an AI for a generation they should absolutely be compensated slightly for the contribution their work made to that AI generation render. Just like a creator on YouTube gets compensated a little per view.

At the end of the day it's about consent and ownership rights no? Artists post their art online with the intention of having it be seen and drawn inspiration from by other people. Had they been given the agency to choose whether or not to allow their works be used to train a mass producing machine, most of them probably would've opted out. You could say that it's to be expected from posting downloadable works on the internet. But stating a fact of life doesn't automatically make it right.

I personally don't find enjoyment from ai created media. No matter how good or human-like it is, the end result is just a fraction of what defines an art. If you see things differently then by all means. I'm not gonna police how you enjoy things and I don't push regular folks away for using gen ai for its convenience. I personally am guilty of using chatbots for coding and simple inquiries

 

[PersonBeforeLife]

At the end of the day it's about consent and ownership rights no? Artists post their art online with the intention of having it be seen and drawn inspiration from by other people. Had they been given the agency to choose whether or not to allow their works be used to train a mass producing machine, most of them probably would've opted out. You could say that it's to be expected from posting downloadable works on the internet. But stating a fact of life doesn't automatically make it right.

I personally don't find enjoyment from ai created media. No matter how good or human-like it is, the end result is just a fraction of what defines an art. If you see things differently then by all means. I'm not gonna police how you enjoy things and I don't push regular folks away for using gen ai for its convenience. I personally am guilty of using chatbots for coding and simple inquiries

Personally if I created artwork (or anything for that matter) I'd like it to be a part of the progress of the world as some sort of silly legacy but that's just me... I struggle with finding meaning in life.