Nobody who uses AI treats it like a tool, they treat it like an employee they can claim credit for. And most tools aren't actively detrimental to the user to the point of proven intelligence drops, lawsuits and environmental destruction. Also, the enemy charges you money to use it.

The only person who benefits from AI is the person selling it. So why are you trying to defend it?

with a reply that amounted to "I'm an AI researcher, and you're wrong about the technology. There are plenty of legitimate uses."

Which part of the original comment do either you or zd9 disagree with?

Let's go through it claim by claim.

Nobody who uses AI treats it like a tool, they treat it like an employee they can claim credit for.

This is subjective, so I'll let you have it, but it's true in a lot of cases. Vibe coders and AI artists definitely do, and people who use it as a coding assistant arguably do.

most tools aren't actively detrimental to the user to the point of proven intelligence drops,

https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872

lawsuits

I'm not sure what precisely @susaga@sh.itjust.works meant by this, so until they clarify I'll tentatively say you can have that one too.

and environmental destruction.

Where to begin? Clean air act violating natural gas turbines on xAI datacenters? Houses being claimed under eminent domain to build beefier power lines because they use that much? Water use?

Also, the enemy charges you money to use it.

Unless you're using a local LLM, this is obviously true.

Again I ask: which part of the comment zd9 replied to was wrong?

[–] anzo@programming.dev 1 points 6 hours ago

Oh, this is not about the top level comment anymore. Zd9 replied one positive use of AI. Not to demeanor the negative sides by that, only to put a fact on the table. Then you came in... the discussion now shifted into.. this. I am no longer engaging, sorry. I didn't mean to discuss at all, only wanted to help u see how the conversation was about you not understanding something... It's there, your downvoted comment.