this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2026
1009 points (96.8% liked)
Fuck AI
8530 readers
2184 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.
Rules:
- Relevant posts only.
- No bigotry.
- This isn't a place to talk about the cons and (supposed) pros of AI for different use cases. This is /c/fuck_ai .
- Especially no AI advocacy.
- Don't make any posts that are just AI content with no context unless the point of your post is obvious from content. (Don't just post slop advertisements or slop political cartoons. At least make your point about it clear so we know you aren't just trolling.)
- Venting is part of the purpose of this community, but don't aim frustration or accusations at other users.
- These rules are a living document that may change in the future.
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
I feel like we’re more or less saying the same thing here. I think the initial argument was a fairly logical and dry one about what skills CEOs do and don’t have, not, as I think we both claim is more important, that they work for companies in capitalism, with all that that entails, such that the marketable qualities of the CEO as a person are a distraction.
No, what I'm saying is that being this into AI is mentally disqualifying. We can conclude the CEO is mental because his interests are mental.
Sure. Either way, that’s not the argument that was made in the tweet. It was much more specific and easily countered, which is my broader point.
I still don't think you understand what I'm saying.
Tim Sweeney can say that he is skilled, actually, but 1), I don't believe him, and 2) his use of AI is disqualifying. He can say "but I do value the craft of making things," and I can say "no, he doesn't; here's the evidence: he uses AI."
I get what you’re saying. But that’s your thoughts not those presented in the Twitter excerpt, and I’m talking about that excerpt.
Slightly more broadly, yes one can make the point that you are, and it may have been a more interesting exchange on Twitter if it were made from the top.
More broadly, I still have concerns about the nature of “the discourse”, because I just don’t think you’re going to win many hearts and minds with this line of thinking without some change in the framing, by, eg, focusing on the harms and “evils” of AI (with the disqualification of those indifferent to such issues being a natural corollary).
But even then, I fear still that that conversation is being lost, and these sort of ad hominem attacks as we see in the excerpt and even your summary just above of disqualified people are symptom of anti-AI not knowing what to say anymore. I see your point about shaming and all, but I look around the world and honestly think it’s a pipe dream. I hope it works for you, genuinely.
But this is ultimately what I'm getting at: this is fine.
You have a period of natural discourse over the exact nature of the is and isn'ts, and at some point a truth is found, and any further disagreement is such you have to recognize is irrational and must simply be squashed.
It's not a lack of things to say; the people we're talking to are not listening. Targets like Tim Sweeney, anyway. Audience members actually like it when you dunk on bad people. It's cathartic. It feels like action.
If I had any criticism for these people, it's that this action tends not to metastasize into anything. We've had decades and decades of discourse over global warming, probably some of it mean, and yet nothing has really happened. Nobody wants to put in the work to bring these polluting companies to heel.
I don't necessarily think that anything is going to happen either, but I also don't think that tempering our tones to be more civil and hyperfactual is helping.
To effect change, you need energy. And stopping people from hurrah-ing so that you can correct them on the nuances of their speech—speech that isn't even wrong, if I'm being perfectly honest—speech that is only idictable by some fractal of technicalities—stifles that energy. You lose momentum, naturally, by constantly stopping to check your shoe laces.
Anyway, I really don't mean to drag this out. I don't think you're a bad guy or anything, I just see a tone-policing thing happening here that irks me.
All good!
In the end, I think we’re more or less in the same page. If you picked up on a tone policing vibe, I think I can see that, but that totally wasn’t where I was coming from. EG, going after all CEOs for being brain washed psychopaths who naturally use AI because they’re psychopathic would have been in line with what I was saying, at least to me.
But no need to drag this out. Appreciate your comments!
Thanks!