The mindset that treats AI like the bubonic plague. It’s not something that should be avoided. If used properly, it can be a great asset for people.
AI is just a tool, and you shouldn’t blame it for humans’ misuse of it. Instead, we should treat it like other tools: as something to use for appropriate situations/tasks.
The “if used properly” is the hard part: AI is good for simple tasks, like organizing and labeling things. However, as of 2026, AI is not sufficient for tasks involving creativity like art and music. It doesn’t capture that human aspect yet (It could in the future).
TL:DR: My point is that AI isn’t inherently bad, like many people make it out to be. Instead, it’s how humans use it that can make it bad.
I think people blame AI for incompetent management, which is like blaming a saw for bad carpentry. AI doesn’t force employees to use it whether it’s appropriate or not - managers do that. AI isn’t building massive datacenters regardless of impact - executives are doing that.
I’m fairly Anti-AI, but some people here definitely have a ridiculously absolutist stance towards it, which seems to be getting more common. Like if AI was used to fix a bug in otherwise human-written code for a videogame? That game is now slop and needs to be shunned apparently. If cancer was cured with the help of AI, I’m sure that medicine would be slop too and they’d refuse it like JWs refuse whole blood transfusions.
I use AI at work, it has significantly improved my productivity, it does the shit mundane stuff (like transferring information into new corporate templates) leaving me to concentrate on the actual job I need to do.
AI is not sufficient for tasks involving creativity like art and music. It doesn’t capture that human aspect yet (It could in the future).
There’s a dismissive take on AI creating art that “AI can never create a truly great work of art or tell a truly compelling story.” I worry less about that, since those are really subjective stances to take on a given work; one person’s La Dolce Vita is another’s Dude, Where’s My Car? and vice versa.
What I want us to worry about is: What are we going to do to protect human dignity, even if there’s no profit motive in it? Sure, maybe an AI screenwriter could someday write a movie that people would want to see, but why should that mean that human screenwriters should have to starve even more than they currently do? If we can automate a large percentage of all human labor, does that mean that we’re just going to render most humans unemployable and not change anything else, because that’s what the invisible hand demands? Or are we going to have a serious conversation about how human dignity has value, in and of itself, and totally separate from our ability to increase GDP?
The mindset that treats AI like the bubonic plague. It’s not something that should be avoided. If used properly, it can be a great asset for people.
AI is just a tool, and you shouldn’t blame it for humans’ misuse of it. Instead, we should treat it like other tools: as something to use for appropriate situations/tasks.
The “if used properly” is the hard part: AI is good for simple tasks, like organizing and labeling things. However, as of 2026, AI is not sufficient for tasks involving creativity like art and music. It doesn’t capture that human aspect yet (It could in the future).
TL:DR: My point is that AI isn’t inherently bad, like many people make it out to be. Instead, it’s how humans use it that can make it bad.
I think people blame AI for incompetent management, which is like blaming a saw for bad carpentry. AI doesn’t force employees to use it whether it’s appropriate or not - managers do that. AI isn’t building massive datacenters regardless of impact - executives are doing that.
I’m fairly Anti-AI, but some people here definitely have a ridiculously absolutist stance towards it, which seems to be getting more common. Like if AI was used to fix a bug in otherwise human-written code for a videogame? That game is now slop and needs to be shunned apparently. If cancer was cured with the help of AI, I’m sure that medicine would be slop too and they’d refuse it like JWs refuse whole blood transfusions.
I agree with this.
I use AI at work, it has significantly improved my productivity, it does the shit mundane stuff (like transferring information into new corporate templates) leaving me to concentrate on the actual job I need to do.
I hate AI for reasons™ but the constant whining about AI makes me think it’s probably not that bad. I might be 14yo contrarian.
Sure… but I’d like for them to make some sort of amends for stealing all the content on the internet to make it?
And I’d like content made by AI to have that declared so consumers can support human artists and avoid grifters.
There’s a dismissive take on AI creating art that “AI can never create a truly great work of art or tell a truly compelling story.” I worry less about that, since those are really subjective stances to take on a given work; one person’s La Dolce Vita is another’s Dude, Where’s My Car? and vice versa.
What I want us to worry about is: What are we going to do to protect human dignity, even if there’s no profit motive in it? Sure, maybe an AI screenwriter could someday write a movie that people would want to see, but why should that mean that human screenwriters should have to starve even more than they currently do? If we can automate a large percentage of all human labor, does that mean that we’re just going to render most humans unemployable and not change anything else, because that’s what the invisible hand demands? Or are we going to have a serious conversation about how human dignity has value, in and of itself, and totally separate from our ability to increase GDP?