Yes, I avoided using it for the longest but the voices that end up pushing me away these days are the antis who gatekeep like crazy, say other people are lazy, decry anything they don't like as "slop" etc. One side is moving forward and I'm sure they'll figure out the right mix over time. The group that just denigrates other people, I wonder how they will cope over the next few years.

It's good as a community to communicate what we prefer to read. At least that way the author knows why they're getting the cold shoulder.

I don't know what you really mean by "cancelling", but I think it's totally fine (and even good) to talk about the flaws in stuff.

It is all of those things and more.

Ethical: favour the notion that humans should be who we look to for writing, and that some of them are hopefully meaningfully compensated for it

Political: favour the decentralisation of effort away from US cloud AI firms

Practical: there's too much to read in the world; a very useful quality signal is to favour things obvious people put obvious effort into

Personal: it is soul-destroying that we live in a world that suddenly devalues people and their efforts so completely.

I think perhaps you are showing your own bias here. But abusing people for their chosen principles is not a business-winning strategy.

It's actually practical advice to avoid wasting your time on nonsense.

LOL, TF are you talking about? It's neither a political nor ethical, it's practical. It's about not wasting your previous time on earth reading garbage the author doesn't understand themselves.

I don't agree, especially for this argument.

I'm a major AI user. Coding? Sure. But language learning, some art projects, TTRPG design. I'm so far 'lost' that I have a number of AI songs on my YouTube play list. For the anti-AI people, I'm like a walking abomination.

Yet despite all this, I still am a firm believer in "if you couldn't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it" as a default stance. I feel human to human communication should remain human to human. If AI is involved, the extent should be limited to where the human to human communication couldn't be achieved otherwise and fully disclosed.

Someone might even say I'm a bit of a hypocrite. Why do I like listening to an AI song but not reading an AI blog. Honestly, I'm not sure. I'm actually a bit puzzled by it myself. Regardless of the why, I think I should be an example of someone who holds this position for reasons entirely different than those you suggest.

I don't even disagree with you in general, a lot of AI discourse does seem to have bad faith arguments put forward and I do tire of some of them. But this specific one is one of the more few that seem good faith enough we should steelman it.

It's a useful heuristic. There's a good chance it's just nonsense rather than interesting information that was AI edited. Just give me your prompt. I'd rather read the raw prompt than the grandiose slop output. It's way to verbose, and enumerates every useless microscopic detail, real and imagined.

It’s not political. You disrespect me by insisting I spend my personal time and attention on something you couldn’t be assed to do on your own. You clearly think you’re above me and that your attention is worth more than mine.