I’ve noticed an uptick in the number of pro-AI posts on this platform.
Various posts with titles similar to “When will people stop being afraid of AI” or “Can we please acknowledge AI was very needed for X”
Can’t tell if its the propaganda machine invading, or annoying teenage tech-bros who are detached from reality.
AI hs already been demonstrated as a tool that largely benefits fascists and oligarchs. It is not a question at this point. At this point, all of the AI-evangelists are either extremwly stupid or fascists themselves.
AI hs already been demonstrated as a tool that largely benefits fascists and oligarchs.
Lmfao, what? The internet is also a tool that largely benefits fascists and oligarchs. Does that make every user of the internet a fascist, or just stupid?
Of course bad actors are going to take advantage of a tool that is very useful in an absurd amount of contexts…
Palantir wants not only a total surveillance world, but also needs AI to process and use the information it has on almost anyone to send to jail or murder.
Yeah that is why the worst fascists and oligarchs block access to the Internet. I think you are being pretty disingenuous here whether you realize it or not. The Internet is like a utility at this point and that is not even remotely comparable with how AI is currently being deployed and used by major corporations.
I am glad to hear you accept bad actors will misuse it. I don’t think anyone is actually ready for the level of deception that AI will be able to accomplish once it has access to you and your family/friends information while being used by a nefarious party. For example impersonating loved ones to trick you, epic cat fishing with a persona that has been custom tailored to you, complex financial schemes involving fraud, etc.
It seems like its usually just one person just posting over and over or making alts (I assume, based on the fact they just reiterate the same arguments), rather than a coordinated effort.
I assume, based on the fact they just reiterate the same arguments
I saw someone else make this same argument. Can’t believe you made an alt to post it again.
It’s a sad state of affairs. Post anything that is going against the grain, you must be a bot or part of a coordinated attack…
Some people are unlearning the fact that different opinions exist :'(
propaganda
FYI: Anti-AI people are a very small minority of the world.
When more “normies” join in, you’ll see a natural shift into being more “pro AI”
Anecdote: A fucking therapist told me to “just use AI to help you write a resume”… 🧐 (don’t remember how I even got to the topic of resumes)
Yeah… turns out not a good fit, for other reasons… (constantly just be like “go outside” and making me feel so unconfortable and I kinda had an existential crisis on whether or not I belonged in this country)
Yeah… Your opinion isn’t really backed by the data
“Normies” don’t default to pro AI
Tbf they said “the world” not “USA”
"Globally, the share of individuals who see AI products and services as more beneficial than harmful has risen from 52% in 2022 to 55% in 2024.
https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report/public-opinion
Here, try this - genuine, well-regarded organization with actual experience at opinion polling far in excess of the clanker wankers at Stanford: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/10/15/how-people-around-the-world-view-ai/
But many are worried about AI’s effects on daily life. A median of 34% of adults say they are more concerned than excited about the increased use of AI, while 42% are equally concerned and excited. A median of 16% are more excited than concerned.
Interesting how Americans are the most concerned. I wonder what might explain that. In the US, white people are the most worried (IIRC).
Probably because we have the worst mix of low govt regulations and high amounts of AI tech being pushed at us.
Those are a different set of questions though. The question shouldn’t be if someone is concerned about AI use. Frankly, everyone should be. It has a huge capacity for harm in a growing number of areas in modern society. The question should be about who is using it. Additionally, what are they using it for? Novel problem solving, new automation, replacing older automation, or just for fun? That is what I’d personally be much more interested in finding out.
clanker wankers at Stanford
Just going to toss out a wild guess here, but any chance you might be emotionally motivated to find a source that backs what you already believe to be true rather than looking at the stats objectively?
I too am concerned about AI, but I’m not against it. Those things aren’t the same.
Being concerned about at technology and being against that technology are not synonymous.
Yeah, and you can automatically trust such an independent and neutral source as that 🙄
Is Stanford not neutral or independent? AFAIK the data is from Ipsos and they just made visualizations, though you can correct me if I’m wrong. I was just trying to say that the OP said the world whereas the person I replied to showed data from Americans specifically.
Edit: Ohhh I see it’s from Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) not just Stanford the University, my bad.
I could definitely see how this would be a biased source then:
“Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) is an academic entity led by an interdisciplinary steering committee of university researchers and industry experts.”
Luckily they only made visualizations from Ipsos’s data though I think?
Ipsos is a poll-for-hire firm and they just design the surveys their clients want, unlike Pew which is doing actual independent research polling. It’s like the difference between tobacco company-funded specialized research and independent, government funded basic research.
The byline of the article you posted is “Americans see a role for AI in some areas of society” and it clearly states “a majority is open to letting AI assist them with day-to-day tasks and activities”.
Being “afraid” of it isn’t the same as not using it.
“Normies” don’t default to pro AI [emphasis mine]
That’s a pretty significant distinction there. People are using AI even if they’re not “paying” (directly) for pro versions.
A lot of people are using AI in ways they don’t realize as well. Like the click through rate on Google search results is terrible now since people are just reading the AI generated summary and moving on (Study Confirms Google AI Overviews Cut Organic Clicks 38% https://share.google/8gllKLbbC0Onygqvz).
Other people eat up and share AI slop articles, videos and photos without even batting an eye. I ask them if they’ve thought about whether it’s real or not. Nope. I point out its AI slop. “oh, that sucks. But it’s still hilarious/cool/fascinating/etc.”
I know several people who don’t even think twice about using free AI directly. Need to translate something? Copilot. Need to write an email? Copilot. Need to post something to instagram? Copilot (for text, not the photos - as far as I know.)
Will they pay for it? No. Will they say they’re worried about AI? Yup. Do they connect what they’re doing to the issue? Nope.
If you only pay attention to the prevailing winds here on Lemmy, your view of the world will be very skewed.
I think you may be misinterpreting the data set that you posted. The point of that data set wasn’t to find if someone was pro versus anti-AI. It was to find concerns about existing AI structure. Nonetheless, that post shows on a few occasions The majority of the people surveyed were okay with AI as a whole, but were just concerned about how it was functioning and controlled.
if you would like to look into that data yourself, it even says it right on the front page when it asks about what sectors people believe that AI should be in and only about one third of the people who responded said that it should play no role whatsoever in the topics.
The best graph for it though in my opinion is the very last page where they asked the question of how many people would use AI at all even a little bit and the majority of them said they would at least a little bit use AI.
from how I interpreted it, it’s clear at least by that study that the majority of the people are for AI, but they are concerned with how it’s currently being implemented. And there are certain areas that they don’t believe it should be in Such as relationships, health care and creative thinking. (Although these areas still got quite a bit of votes just didn’t hit the 50%)
I have been expecting there to be some softening and some people who use AI for coding on the DL here. It really has gotten significantly more common to at least try out tools like Claude Code. But those people aren’t writing articles like that and I’m not seeing them.
Out of curiosity, why have you been expecting a softening? From what I’ve seen AI tools for coding have gotten worse recently, not better. And companies are now jacking up the prices, to be more in line with costs. I’ve heard people irl complaining they went from $10 per month to $1000 if they were to continue using it the same way. Most have capped themselves or stopped altogether, as with that price it isn’t worth it anymore.
So my personal experience is more people complaining, but I’m interested in your view.
You have a good point that I missed about pricing that will keep many hobbyists away who can’t run something like Qwen Code locally. I don’t think the models have gotten worse although I don’t have data to back that up, but what I do know is a lot of devs in the private sector I know have gotten onboard recently and they had positive experiences with using it for coding tasks.
So given that it is more likely to me that opinion would soften even here. Most people just don’t care that much about the ethical or philosophical problems of LLMs and pragmatism for solving problems they care about will win out.
Thanks for responding. It’s good to get different people’s opinion about it.
Running stuff locally is really cool, I’ve messed about with it. I think the tech is super interesting, it’s just a shame about all the downsides in the way it’s used right now. Unfortunately what I can run is very limited, my most powerful machine has a 4070 GPU with 12GB of VRAM. The lack of VRAM really limits it to very small models which are fun to play around with, but not for anything serious.
I would love to get my hands on something with more VRAM or one of those unified memory ARM systems. However AI has pushed prices for anything like that into the stratosphere.
I like to hear opinions of people who find it interesting; myself I’ve tried Claude and did not like the experience and don’t use it. I have a similar gaming GPU that could run small models but not ones powerful enough to be very interesting.
Companies and programmers who are using it for real world development don’t care about $1000. A good programmer will run a company $10k or even $20k a month for their salary. If they can add even 50% to the output from that programmer they will throw $2000 a month at it and not even blink an eye.
The Anti-AI folks don’t talk to that kind of person much. They’re not running in the same social circles.
Meanwhile, I have a working application I built to replace a shitty corporate android app for a product I own that’s used for my side hustle. Built using an agentic harness using a local opensource LLM. Coding such a thing myself was beyond my development skill level, and it probably would have cost $100k-200k to pay a programmer to rebuild it to the level that it’s currently at now.
I’ve been encouraged to use Claude Code for work, and by a lot of genuinely very talented engineers. It’s absolutely overhyped if you look at twitter tech bros, and absolutely under hyped if you only read Lemmy.
If anything it seems to be the reverse. The two most anti-slop people I know in real life are developers that are now unemployed due to slop. Anecdotes, though.
Which raises 2 questions: Were they anti-slop because they saw the threat to their jobs? Or did they lose their jobs because they wouldn’t match the output of AI users?
Definitely the former. I’m not a professional developer so this may be inaccurate, but I don’t think there are non-AI users in professional development spaces anymore. Claude seems pretty much ubiquitous at this point; I doubt there have been meaningful numbers of non-AI-using developers for a while.
Which makes the risk of deskilling so much more scary to me, personally. At least now we still have developers that can understand, untangle, and troubleshoot AI code output. Will the next generation of AI-first developers have those same skills?
Humans are social animals, in the United States especially where people are severely separated- they’ll look for and find any kind of easy access towards social interactions: including but not limited to Chat bots. It’s a sad reality that they would dismiss the negative affects it has on our social brains, dismiss the environmental effects it has on our planet, dismiss the social warmings because they’re too involved with LLMS “AI”.
That’s right, it’s not even AI; it’s only large language models or some agentic systems. Way smaller ones existed in the past, think Dr. Sbaitso (1992) or A.L.I.C.E. (1995.) it’s actually not hard to make a chat bot, just have it echo what the user says with some key phrases. That’s the whole existence of chat bots and today’s current “ai” only they have a LOT more variables that were generated off of huge randomly generated data sets (both off of free open sources and stolen data) and that’s what causes it to hallucinate: it’s the randomness that humans don’t have the ability to change or update simply because it’s such a huge list of variables. It’s so massive people think it’s real intelligence! PEOPLE WERE FOOLED ON 1990’s CHART BOTS TOO! 😭 😂
Anywho we recommend the movies Desk Set, Space Odyssey, pi and even Alphaville. They’re related to the subject and they’re pretty good at pointing out the bruhs.
Sure, sure. So when LLMs find 0days that have been around for a decade, they’re just cold reading and stroking the sloperator’s ego. Got it.
If your point was to say “LLMs are good because it can hack into people’s PCs and make the world worse” I think you gotta start setting priorities towards finding some empathy.
Besides it was not discovered by an LLM or AI. It was discovered by Taeyang Lee, researcher at Theori and then later refined into an exploit chain by the Xint Code Research Team, whom both used an “AI”-assisted analysis. So no LLMs didn’t magically find a decade old exploit, LLMs simply was used as a search function based on its trained module of the past coding assets and the logic bug in the Linux kernel.
So yeah it’s basically a glorified search function at that point and if you can find peace fucking a search bar- hey man that’s your thing 🤷🏻♀️
Our sources:
Holy shit, are you a professional strawman builder? Because you’re really good.
An LLM helped fix a bug. That’s all we need to know. It’s useful. Saying so has nothing to do with empathy, lack thereof, or robosexuality or whatever the shit kids are in to these days.
idk about being a straw-man, but regardless the reply was addressing the misleading and not giving proper credit to the researchers and further giving that LLMs were used for analysis, not full on finding the exploit, so no LLMs aren’t good at finding exploits without clear search inquires by humans.
As for the empathy and the robo-sexuality- It was the intentional point of the original comment that people find heavy social relation towards LLMs or other objects that are able to communicate back to them. Even in our examples of the movies they touch on romantically/sexual relations towards robots and a couple others point towards the empathy of them as well. PS these are topics from 1950’s not “whatever the shit kids are in to these days.” Most people affected by this are older generations and young adults without social netting.
Turning it around phrasing that LLMs are useful towards finding exploits makes it sound more like your wanting to use LLMs for using said exploits rather than using LLMs for better use cases. Regardless its still not possible nor ever will be because again LLMs can only use predetermined variables based on its previous learning data set and random variables (PS those random variables that are undesirable are what is commonly called hallucination, its just unwanted variables in a huge spaghetti code.) Its even on the site your sourced:
“Was this AI-found? AI-assisted. The starting insight — that splice() hands page-cache pages into the crypto subsystem and that scatterlist page provenance might be an under-explored bug class — came from human research by Taeyang Lee.”
If we misread your interpretation then our mistake, however the phrasing felt more that you were praising AI for finding exploits and not for actual good use and it read out to us like an ethical issue.
If making this stance clear that LLMs make more harm than good in the case of chat Bots and being used as full on replacements of people makes us a Straw-man than IG we’re a straw-man or whatever lol.
Though we can probably agree that Machine Learning can, should and have been used since the 1950s as glorified search and calculation engines for complex equations and datasets. They can make really good use for generating and categorizing random protein molecules, find patterns in cancer research and even filter out examples astronomers find in the night sky; however its overall useless without a qualified and passionate researcher who knows their stuff and can double check their ML sifters.
Sources for the saucy beans:
- 2016 BBC report on rise of Romantic Robotics: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-35354263 (wild fucking article, the movies give more light to the subject than the article, but we included it as its an interesting read)
- Your own source for ease of reference:https://copy.fail/#faq (second to last drop down in FAQ titled: Was this AI-found?)
- 2020 History of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine https://www.giejournal.org/article/S0016-5107(20)34466-7/fulltext (Really good read on the history of Machine Learning in medicine)
- 20205 AI advance helps astronomers spot cosmic events with just a handful of examples https://phys.org/news/2025-10-ai-advance-astronomers-cosmic-events.html (AI helped filter and search for patterns it was taught from prior examples and its output was still look through and refined by proper astronomers)
^edit, fixed a bit of formatting lol^
People have different opinions on AI, not everyone is vehemently opposed, and some view it as useful if used on the appropriate configuration.
The big difference for me is that “pro AI” is very different from “recognizing where AI is useful”.
Can my little Intel B70 help me code faster? Yes. Super helpful.
Can a cluster help analyze MRIs to catch things doctors don’t? Also yes.
Can a giant data center replace writing 1MM easy emails while destroying the environment? Yes, but it probably shouldn’t.
You can recognize value and the importance of regulation at the same time.
The problem is that there is a current developing dogma around AI that, because the last example you gave exists, then it must be opposed in all cases. There is a lack of nuance. That is why there may be some “pro-ai” posts, to point out this nuance. The only reason they exist is due to the bias against it as a whole.
I’m 100% sure I haven’t seen all the ‘pro ai’ posts, but the ones I have seen are not nuanced. They’re very likely bots, and all-in on, or argumentative for, AI.
this is a SOCIAL NETWORK not an AI platform
we’re expecting to interact with people
Yes, those articles are for people. Advertising to AI makes no sense.
What part of what I said implies that I want bots to take the place of humans on social networks? What a very strange conclusion to jump to. I just think that AI has some useful applications.
It’s probably a mix of both, plus the normal cycle of online discourse. As AI tools become more common, you naturally get more people defending them, evangelizing them, or reacting against criticism. Some are genuinely enthusiastic users. Some are industry-adjacent people pushing narratives. Some are just contrarians who enjoy provoking anti-AI spaces.
On federated platforms like Lemmy, a small number of highly active users can also create the impression of a broader cultural shift. Repetitive framing like “people are irrationally afraid of AI” often comes from the same internet optimism culture that treated crypto, NFTs, and “disruption” as inevitable progress.
That said, there is also a real backlash to constant doomposting. Some users are tired of seeing every AI discussion framed exclusively around collapse, theft, or dehumanization, so they overcorrect in the other direction.
Your instincts are not unreasonable though. Coordinated narrative shaping absolutely exists online, especially around technologies tied to massive corporate investment.
On federated platforms like Lemmy, a small number of highly active users can also create the impression of a broader cultural shift.
And bear in mind that this goes in both directions, it’s possible for highly active anti-AI users to flood the discourse.
Community opinion is often a bistable state. If 70% of the userbase has opinion A and is constantly downvoting and browbeating anyone who says anything positive about opinion B, one would naturally expect the userbase to soon be 80% opinion A. Then 90%. And so forth. The few holdouts who continue to say positive things about opinion B get labelled as “bots” and “trolls” and are dismissed.
Thank you. Not enough people recognize this.
Additionally, groups with an agenda can reinforce this trend.
Maybe it’s just that the world isn’t as uniform in their anti-AI opinion as you imagine it to be? Social media inherently forms bubbles, smaller platforms like the Fediverse even moreso than most. As the Fediverse grows opinions are likely to become more diverse.
AI (LLMs) is/are a fantastic tool.
But that’s what it is, a tool that can make some tasks easier.
It’s not world-changing like some tech bros and CEOs think it is because they don’t actually understand the technology.
It’s also not the apocalypse or The Matrix or Skynet coming to end civilization. It’s just a tool.
After the AI bubble bursts, AI will still be there, as a tool for humans to use.
I think it’s possible that some of the people you see on Lemmy may have started using AI a little more in their lives and see it for what it is.
Google at some point also was a great tool. Wikipedia also joins the rankings. LLM chatbots are great but certainly not the primary source of information.
What annoys me is that people began to use them to not to do simple things like writing their own posts about their own things. They began to generate content instead of making it. It is obvious that anything what takes time to be produced, will most certainly be automated once tools are given. But this annoys the hell out of me.
Seeing posts, comments, content generated by LLM, I feel that I am being robbed of artistry, curiosity, interactions with real people. I can automate chats with my family, friends, colleagues, children. But that wont be me. That will be perfect grammar sentence generator, not me - real, tons of mistakes, typos, mostly renting about everything, passionate, bored, funny, witty, dull me.
It saddens me that LLMs are exedcuting (almost?) final blow to a society that is sustaining social media terminal damage.
They began to generate content instead of making it. […] [This] annoys the hell out of me.
Seeing posts, comments, content generated by LLM, I feel that I am being robbed of artistry, curiosity, interactions with real people.
That is probably the greatest irritation I have with my wife right now. I don’t wanna start fights over it, but I also don’t make a secret of my disdain that she uses LLMs for her work. I get it, she has to, because her business requires churning out a lot of text quickly to stay competitive and I want her to succeed, but I hate what the internet has come to and I hate that she participates in that race to the bottom.
typos, mostly renting about everything
That is either a wonderful coincidence or a clever joke, but I love it either way.
Unfortunately we will always have problems explaining to people how to use the right tool for the right job.
The old “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” saying still applies.
Using LLMs to automate your social media is dumb as shit and I don’t understand why people are doing that. It is actively destroying social media. Which may be the natural end-state of a social media platform. Isn’t that why most of us are on Lemmy right now? Because of the state of Reddit and Xitter?
Also, generative AI making art and music and literature is dumb as shit too. Why would you make an AI that does the fun stuff that humans actually want to do? I can’t wait to have AI finish playing BioShock for me…
You know what’s crazy is that everyone has begun rebranding things that existed before AI as AI.
The algorithm summary of a common question in Google results? Now it’s AI.
Trello’s automation tasks moving items marked as “Done” to archive? Now it’s AI✨
It’s idiotic lol
Marketing BS. The bad part is all the C-Suites falling for it.
LLMs are neat, and useful for some things - but as with practically everything in modern society, capitalism is ruining it.
It’s also not the apocalypse […] It’s just a tool.
So, the problem with tools is that their existence still affects the systems they’re a part of.
For instance, war between the US and Russia is much more dangerous now (yes, it used to be dangerous before as well) because now we have nuclear bombs. We did a whole cold war thing about it. Nuclear bombs change the world even when they’re not being used.
Similarly, meth is just a tool. It is entirely possible to smoke meth, not become addicted, have a great time, vacuum your entire house I guess, come down, chill, and move on with the rest of your life. But, that’s not what we would say meth’s effect on society is, is it?
I am so happy that you are capable of using AI without becoming a psychopath. I am concerned about the psychopaths.
To be fair, given the power consumption it requires, it definitely leans towards civilization ending.
We also have “the Internet” slurping up massive amounts of energy.
Current Global Electricity Breakdown:
- Total Data Center/Infrastructure Demand: Approximately 2.0% of global electricity.
- AI-Specific Share: Roughly 0.5% of global electricity.
- “Traditional” Internet/Cloud: Roughly 1.5% of global electricity.
The Internet is also a tool that humanity uses. Should we shut that down too? (I would argue yes considering how the “Information Superhighway” somehow made the average person dumber, but that’s a different discussion.)
Except the Internet is actually useful. AI has not shown that it deserves to use that insane amount of energy. It’s actually insane that you think AI isn’t an issue when it’s using 1/3rd as much energy as the ENTIRE INTERNET
Can’t tell if its the propaganda machine invading, or annoying teenage tech-bros who are detached from reality.
They’re both “annoying teenage tech-bros who are detached from reality” and they are spreading propaganda they picked up elsewhere.
What do you mean by AI? LLMs or artificial neural networks in general?
It’s usually bots. Unfortunately it’s not easy to moderate them, but if a bot is reported, doesn’t have a bot flag, and says a bunch of pro-ai stuff in addition to the reported activity it’s usually enough evidence to ban. It’s just one of their current tells, I wouldn’t base a ban only on that though. Report when you suspect them though.
I think AI has positives to help people, that being said I think it’s out of control currently. I hope the bubble burst soon and we can actually get to a reasonable balance.
I hope the bubble burst soon and we can actually get to a reasonable balance.
In fictional stories yes, in reality no. The only application that AI will find is to replace all employees, and people will be thrown out into the street.
The fuckai crowd has always been a vocal minority, amplified by Lemmy’s small userbase. It was never going to last as the default message being heard.
Personally I think LLMs are pretty useful and run them on my PC occasionally. I’m more of a Fuck Corporate Datacentres kinda person.
I’m with ya there. I think a lot of the valid hate towards AI is is actually for Big Tech companies and data centers.
I support folks running less powerful locally hosted models on their own hardware, which I also do myself!
Useful for what?
Hallucinating or using drinking water?
Making amazing images incredibly quickly 🤷🏻♂️
Didn’t know my PC used water? Thanks for teaching me something.
Their concerns about drinking water are exaggerated, but technically your computer does use water if go far enough back. But once you do that, everything that uses electricity also uses water.
It’s not nearly as much water as using ethanol gas.
How do you imagine your “local” AI was trained? Let me tell you, in a massive datacenter that used gallons of water.
Running AI is a smaller problem. A ton of power and resources go into training them.
Not to mention all the stolen work they are trained on.
Yes.
Useful for what?
Checking writing for grammatical errors.
You don’t need AI for that. Grammar checkers existed for decades before AI.
That’s not what the question was about.
