this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2026
128 points (98.5% liked)
Fuck AI
7469 readers
468 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And then you get called a Luddite for not being on board with the slop.
Well if you think AI should be banned (for example) then you are a Luddite? I mean without any insulting, they were anti new tech and the name has basically become just that.
I went luddite on music a while ago, going back to pre making playlists on usb keys instead of spotify and such crap, I wouldn't get offended by the term.
They were anti-loom tech, because it was going to take jobs from people.
Thank you mr obvious (AI isn't doing that by any chance?).
I don't understand the reason or need to be calling anyone anything, even if it's accurate. Names for groups of people who think a certain thing only serve to polarize the discourse, at best, or worse, target them with propaganda (aimed at the "other" group).
Creating a "them" is just counterproductive to the conversation and the facts.
Categorisation and labeling are incredibly helpful in some contexts.
It conveys a contextual set of parameters without having to explain each one in detail every time it comes up.
Using categories and labels to be an arsehole is the fault of the arsehole not the tool.
I understand there is nuance here, categories can be detrimental to certain kind of thinking because they make it easy to stay inside the box.
But no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
What I'm saying is that you can talk about a problem without introducing a term to describe the people participating in the discussion. That's a different thing to what you're describing.
But either way, if you really need labels in your discourse, you want to put the labels and categories on (a group of) ideas, not the people having them. Can we agree on that part?
And as I said. using a group term as a slur (or using one that is known to usually be a slur) is arsehole behaviour.
Using group terms in general is not.
I don't think so.
Using a term for a person as a way to easily attribute a set of parameters from a grouping is basic communication.
Not all of those attributes/parameters are ideas.
Using it to be hateful is a problem of usage not of categorisation in general.
I'm not arguing that there aren't truly shitty usages out there, im saying it's not the tool its the usage.
Categorisation is almost a core part of language, nations, clubs teams, ethnicities, ideologies, age ranges, genders, sexualities.
I would say that just because it comes naturally to us doesn't mean it's what's best for us. Just like sugar tastes good doesn't mean it's good for you.
What I said in the beginning was this:
So I'm going to only stick to that, even though I generally believe we should try to refer to people as "we" as much as possible unless absolutely necessary. We are one people on this earth, even if we have small differences in our needs and circumstances. And we have very common, global problems right now.
In this particular case, is was not necessary to introduce the fact that a person could be referred to as a "Luddite". It made no difference and only served to polarize and segregate.
Thats not a great example because sugar is a necessary part of nutrition.
It is, however a great example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater because if you hear "sugar bad" and then stop all sugar it's going to cause problems.
Excess sugar is bad, sure, sugar in general, not so much.
You mean like, vegans? Animal rights activists? Conscientious objectors?
Even your example "people who think a certain thing" is a grouping.
Thats still a grouping, it's just a large one. That can also be a dangerously naive way to go about problem solving.
"They are all the same so the solution for all the people in that group must be the same" gets people killed.
Necessary, probably not? , useful, possibly.
That you hear Luddite and think of it as automatically bad might say more about you than the person using the term.
Also segregation is literally the point of grouping and categorisation, again if you think segregation = automatically bad, that might say more about you than you think.
I'd go as far as to say if you see groupings as only a way to be hateful, you might want to consider if your way of thinking is the problem.
Sugar is clearly not a necessary part of nutrition. I have several relatives who live completely sugar-free who are feeling better than they ever have. No sugar intake, not even fruit, no carbs that turn into sugar. It's the LCHF diet. So it's a pretty good example after all.
Look, you're doing your very best at making me out to be the bad guy here. With your extreme stretching of what I'm saying, that "we as one people on earth" is "still a grouping" but it's a group consisting of all people? Come on, bruh. Really? That's just being extreme. I feel like you're up to some kind of rhetorical abuse here. It's not sea-lioning, but almost tangential. Breaking down every single detail of what I'm saying, isolating it from its context, then generalizing it. Ignoring the major points. It's not a pleasant way to have a discussion, friend. You know what I'm saying and what you're doing isn't cool. Just thought I would let you know. (Also, inb4 "oh oh, it's not pleasant when you're WRONG?!" I can see this one coming, so please. I'm saying this knowing full well how it sounds.)
Look, I'm just calling it out like I see it, that name-calling isn't productive, and I told you I'm focusing on this particular example of calling this person a Luddite and how it isn't helpful to the conversation at all. There's no need for grouping one individual in this case. Right? That was my point.
Ketogenic and low carb diets aren't sugar free, they are very low sugar, even grains contain trace amounts of sugars.
But let's agree to disagree on that one,it's not particularly important to this general context.
If you think that me disagreeing with your viewpoint is making you out to be a bad person there's not much i can do about that.
My stance has been that categorization and grouping are core parts so linguistic understanding and communication, so trying to make out that they are only detrimental in their usage is silly.
I keep pointing out your usage of groupings in your attempts to explain why grouping is bad, to emphasise that point.
Claiming hyperbole doesn't negate your usage of groups, large or small.
If you want to make broad claims and then insist counterpoints are nitpicking, that's on you.
If you want to quote a major point you made, with all the context surrounding it, i will point to the direct counter to that.
Your opinion of coolness isn't really a concern, if you don't want to engage that's fine, just say so.
Incidentally the pleasantness of a conversation isn't necessarily tied to the correctness of your (or my) position. If it's unpleasant for you feel free to disengage.
There was no name-calling, quote the section where it happened and i will concede this point.
And i used that specific example in my response.
The message i originally replied to is here :
I responded to that general statement, when you then wanted to focus on the more specific context, i responded to that.
It seems you don't want to discuss this with me, that's fine, pretending to be aggrieved about me responding in general to a specific statement when that's provably false is "not cool"
Okay fair enough, this is more exhausting than it's worth so I have no interest in taking this further. 👍 Have a good one!